ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Internal appeals body (79, 80, 81, 84, 822, 823, 90, 91, 742, 785, 786, 813, 82, 973, 819,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 284

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >

  • Judgment 4780


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The fact that the Appeal Board considered that the appeal was partly receivable and went on to examine it on the merits, on the basis of a deliberate “flexible approach” to receivability, is immaterial.
    As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2536, consideration 5:
    “The complaint must therefore be found irreceivable insofar as it follows an internal appeal which was itself irreceivable. Contrary to the view put forward by the complainant, the fact that the Appeals Board examined not only the issue of lack of jurisdiction or irreceivability but also the merits of the case does not render the defendant’s objection to receivability inadmissible.”
    (See also, for example, Judgments 3330, consideration 2, and 3311, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2536, 3311, 3330

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4748


    137th Session, 2024
    International Olive Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The [organization] violated its duty of care by failing to maintain a properly functioning appeal system, in breach of the applicable rules established by Articles 50 and 64 of the Staff Regulations [...]. Denying the complainant the opportunity to exercise his right to an effective internal appeal denied the fundamental safeguards provided by that right. Neither administrative inefficiency nor a lack of resources can excuse this failure. This is particularly important in a case involving the termination of employment, such as the present. If the appeal reveals that the termination decision was flawed, then, if it has been dealt with in a timely way, steps can be taken to reverse the effects of the termination, including reinstating the employee. As time passes, that outcome becomes increasingly difficult, for practical purposes, to achieve.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4743


    137th Session, 2024
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close a complaint of harassment he had filed and two related matters.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, the general principles applicable to an appeal body do not require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. All that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities (see, for example, Judgment 3447, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; oral proceedings; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4662


    136th Session, 2023
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    As regards the alleged breach of her right to an effective internal appeal due to a lack of impartiality on the part of the Joint Appeals Committee, the Tribunal observes that the complainant’s submissions on this point refer mainly to the fact that the member representing the staff did not issue a dissenting opinion in the face of the numerous egregious flaws in the process before the Committee. However, settled case law has it that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of lack of impartiality and, in this case, the complainant clearly does not adduce the requisite proof. Mere suspicions and allegations unsupported by tangible evidence are insufficient (see Judgment 4553, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; impartiality; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4612


    135th Session, 2023
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to suspend her from duties with immediate effect.

    Consideration 32

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has acknowledged a doctrine of necessity (Judgments 4006, consideration 14, and 2757, consideration 19). That is, circumstances can arise where a decision maker, whether an individual or a body, is lawfully able to make a decision because it is unavoidable and necessary to do so where, in other circumstances, the individual or body should not exercise the decision-making power because to do so might involve a denial of due process.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2757, 4006

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; necessity;



  • Judgment 4592


    135th Session, 2023
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of the amounts transferred into the Eurocontrol scheme in respect of his previously-acquired pension rights and seeks compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered as a result of alleged negligence on the part of the Organisation.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the settled case law of the Tribunal, where the rules applicable to an organisation provide for an internal procedure, that organisation is required to observe and apply those rules under the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti (see Judgments 4506, consideration 5, and 4310, consideration 9). Given that, in the aforementioned Office Notice No. 06/11, Eurocontrol specifically provides that the Joint Committee for Disputes is tasked with giving advisory opinions on complaints made pursuant to Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations, and that, before taking a decision to reject even a part of such a complaint, the Director General must seek the opinion of that committee, Eurocontrol could not, as it in fact did, reject the complainant’s complaints without first receiving that opinion, which, moreover, it had undertaken to obtain in the present case.
    By acting as it did, Eurocontrol effectively decided to make its own finding, without the benefit of such an opinion, that the complainant’s complaint was unfounded and void because of what he had signed on 8 January 2019 and because he had not challenged the final decision of 14 January 2019. The Head of Human Resources thereby disregarded an essential safeguard in the right to an internal appeal, from which all officials of the Organisation are entitled to benefit (see Judgment 4167, under 3), thus rendering the impugned decision unlawful.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4310, 4506

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body; patere legem;



  • Judgment 4589


    135th Session, 2023
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the recruitment process for the position of Staff Council Coordinator and her non-selection for that position.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant submits, by reference to consideration 12 of Judgment 3125, that the Appeal Board committed an error of law by unlawfully restricting its competence while examining her internal appeal. The Tribunal stated, in the referenced consideration, that the internal appeal body involved in that case was wrong to define its own competence by reference to the case law which defines the Tribunal’s own power of review of discretionary decisions. In consideration 14 of Judgment 3125, the Tribunal set aside the selection process solely because the internal appeal body had so restricted its competence. That however is not the end of the matter. The Tribunal’s case law also has it that where an organization’s rules restrict an appeal body’s power to review a discretionary decision, the rules, rather than the foregoing principle, apply (see, for example, Judgment 3077, consideration 3).
    Importantly for the purpose of this case, however, the case law further has it that, notwithstanding that an Appeal Board wrongfully defines its competence to review a selection decision by reference to the Tribunal’s limited power of review, the report of the Board would not be vitiated if it is found that it in fact considered the submissions and materials the parties provided (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 7). Accordingly, in consideration 2 of Judgment 3590, the Tribunal stated that by noting that the candidates had been treated equally, the Appeal Board recognized that the appointing authority enjoyed wide discretion to appoint the person whom it considered to be the most qualified for the post advertised from a shortlist of candidates, all of whom met the requirements specified by the vacancy notice. The Tribunal also stated that this self-restraint on the part of the appeal body is completely justified to the extent that, when conducted correctly, a competition and selection procedure calls for a complex assessment of multiple criteria that relate as much to the candidates’ personalities and qualities as to the organization’s particular interests. It further stated that without compromising the objective assessment of these criteria, the appeal body cannot be vested in every circumstance with the same power of review that must be granted to the bodies responsible for selecting candidates, but that this does not relieve the appeal body of its duty to examine the competition file closely and to provide plausible reasons for its recommendation within the limits of its power of review.
    In the present case, the Appeal Board examined the competition file, although it did not disclose it to the complainant.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3125, 3590, 4010

    Keywords:

    competence; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4553


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover sums which were unduly paid to him as dependent child allowance.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] contends that the IAC opinion was biased. According to him, the two representatives appointed to the IAC by the staff representation and their alternates were under an ever-present threat of disciplinary measures if they complained to the Organisation about their high workload on the IAC.
    The Tribunal observes, however, that the complainant does not adduce the evidence of such a lack of impartiality required under its case law (see, for example, Judgments 4422, consideration 17, and 4097, consideration 14). Mere suspicions and unproven allegations are plainly insufficient in this regard.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4097, 4422

    Keywords:

    bias; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4550


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 and implemented in particular by Circular No. 356.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant also has a cause of action to challenge decision CA/D 2/14 in his capacity as a member of the Appeals Committee appointed by the Staff Committee insofar as, irrespective of the more general impact of the reform in question on the functioning of the Appeals Committee, that decision affected the system under which he was a member of that body and ended prematurely his mandate as a full member of it.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; internal appeals body;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [I]t is important to stress first of all that, although the Appeals Committee’s members appointed by the staff representation obviously are not, contrary to the Staff Committee’s members, defending the employees’ interests as a matter of principle, since it is their responsibility – as it is the responsibility of the members of the Appeals Committee appointed by the President of the Office – to examine the appeals before them in compliance with the requirements of independence and impartiality, the very purpose of the joint composition of this body is nevertheless to allow the expression of the respective points of view and sensitivities of the members appointed by the President and by the Staff Committee. The balance between the representation of the Administration and that of the staff within the Appeals Committee is therefore a fundamental guarantee for employees.
    Moreover, the Tribunal’s case law requires, to ensure that this guarantee is effective, that this balance be respected not only in terms of the number of members sitting on the Appeals Committee, but also in terms of the quality of the staff representation provided within this body.

    Keywords:

    freedom of association; internal appeals body;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; freedom of association; internal appeals body; plenary judgment;



  • Judgment 4545


    134th Session, 2022
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] submits that the refusal to allow her to submit her internal appeal to the JAB in French undermined her right to an internal appeal and the fairness of the appeal procedure. [...] The Tribunal notes that [...] section 9.9(iii) of Chapter 9 of the Implementing Procedures, in the version applicable at the material time, is expressed in mandatory, restrictive terms and was correctly applied in the present case. Similarly, the right to be represented by a lawyer of one’s own choice in internal proceedings does not allow a rule or regulation that requires use of a particular language in those proceedings to be overridden. It is immaterial that the Rules of the Tribunal allow English or French to be used during proceedings before it.

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; language of rule;



  • Judgment 4543


    134th Session, 2022
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant firstly submits that the refusal to allow her to submit her internal appeal to the JAB in French undermined her right to an internal appeal and the fairness of the appeal procedure. [...] The Tribunal notes that [...] section 9.9(iii) of Chapter 9 of the Implementing Procedures, in the version applicable at the material time, is expressed in mandatory, restrictive terms and was correctly applied in the present case. Similarly, the right to be represented by a lawyer of one’s own choice in internal proceedings does not allow a rule or regulation that requires use of a particular language in those proceedings to be overridden. It is immaterial that the Rules of the Tribunal allow English or French to be used during proceedings before it.

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; language of rule;



  • Judgment 4534


    134th Session, 2022
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of UNAIDS, challenges the decision to separate him from service on 31 October 2018, being the date on which he reached his retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    An internal appeal body has a duty to address pleas of substance (see, for example, Judgments 4169, consideration 5, and 4063, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4169

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; plea;



  • Judgment 4499


    134th Session, 2022
    Customs Co-operation Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [I]t should be recalled that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Thus, except in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which she or he challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 2781, consideration 15, and 3067, consideration 20).This is especially so in this case since, under settled case law, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review concerning decisions to abolish posts, in the context of which it will not supplant the organisation’s assessment with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4099, consideration 3, or 4139, consideration 2), whereas the Appeals Board can undertake a more comprehensive review and can, in particular, issue recommendations on the basis of a different assessment or even on grounds of fairness or advisability (see, in particular, Judgment 3732, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein).
    Lastly, in the event that the internal appeal procedure does not result in a final settlement of the dispute, the consideration by the Appeals Board of the circumstances in which the decision was taken to terminate the complainant’s appointment will be of great assistance by allowing the Tribunal to have before it the findings of fact and the items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of that body. Owing to its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the WCO and the broad investigative powers granted to it, the Appeals Board could provide valuable clarification of the circumstances of the instant case, which poses, beyond particular legal questions, sensitive questions of fact relating to the reasons for the contested abolition of post and possible opportunities for the complainant to be reassigned to a different post in the Organization.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067, 3732, 4099, 4139

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4486


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Munich Staff Committee and of the Central Staff Committee.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    With regard to his standing as an alleged member of the MSC [Munich Staff Committee] and the CSC [Central Staff Committee], as rightly pointed out by the IAC and endorsed by the President, at the time of the appeal, the complainant was not a member of the MSC because he had resigned from it, regardless of the purpose underlying his resignation. He was not a member of the CSC either. Pursuant to Article 2 of the then Election Regulations, “[t]he local section [that is to say the MSC] shall appoint the Munich members of the [CSC]”. Therefore, his election to the MSC did not automatically mean that he was also elected to the CSC. On the contrary, a separate appointment is a prerequisite according to the above provision. The complainant did not produce any evidence that the MSC appointed him as a member of the CSC. Thus, his claims as a staff representative of either the MSC or the CSC, including claims for declaring the composition of the MSC and the CSC void, for recognising his mandate to represent in the CSC the category C employees and for accessing the tools of communication for Staff Committee’s members, are irreceivable ratione personae. Accordingly, his allegation that the denial of his participation in the CSC activities constitutes a violation of the prohibition of non-discrimination and of equal treatment is not receivable either.

    Keywords:

    competence; internal appeals body; member of an internal body; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4473


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to recognise his son’s condition as a “serious illness” within the meaning of the provisions governing reimbursement of medical expenses.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that Article 35(2) [of Rule of Application No. 10] provides that a failure to observe the two-month time limit afforded to the Committee to issue its opinion, which allows the Director General to take a decision without having received that opinion, does not in itself render the decision on the internal complaint unlawful.

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; interpretation of rules;



  • Judgment 4471


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It is plain from Judgments 4167 and 4217, which also concern complaints of psychological harassment, that a decision is rendered unlawful by the refusal of an organisation’s executive head to disclose to the joint appeals body the report of the investigation into the harassment complaint lodged by the official concerned, or at least a redacted copy thereof. Similarly, in the aforementioned Judgment 4217, considerations 4 to 6, the Tribunal points out that, according to settled case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him. In this case, the Joint Committee for Disputes, on whose opinion the Director General states he bases his decision of 15 December 2016, was not provided with the investigation report concerned. Nor had the complainant received it by the time he was notified on 14 January 2016 that his psychological harassment complaint had been closed. In Judgment 4081, the Tribunal recalls that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the Director General neither provided information nor referred to the Committee’s reasons that would allow the complainant to understand why the decision was taken.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4217

    Keywords:

    confidentiality; final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 4454


    133rd Session, 2022
    World Tourism Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to reject his allegations of misconduct on the part of the Secretary-General.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant is entitled to moral damages for the failure of the JAC to perform its role and determine, according to law, the complainant’s appeal with the result that his challenge to the closure of the complaints remains unresolved in its entirety.

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4447


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Olive Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of some of her functions, arguing that such removal amounted to de facto demotion.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence and other materials on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him, and, under normal circumstances, such materials cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents (see, for example, Judgment 4412, consideration 14). It is also well established that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all of the materials an appeal body uses in an internal appeal, and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process (see, for example, Judgment 3586, consideration 17). These principles were violated when the complainant was not provided with her own copy of the external lawyer’s opinion before the hearing.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4412

    Keywords:

    confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeals body;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [I]t is anomalous that a Legal Department, which is responsible for presenting the organization’s defence to a staff member’s internal appeal, should appear to work in concert with the appeal body (in this case the Joint Committee) whose duty is to fairly hold the balance of justice between the parties. The IOC’s statement that the complainant provides no evidence that the Legal Department gave any kind of orders to the external lawyer is of no moment.

    Keywords:

    impartiality; internal appeals body;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Regarding the complainant’s allegation that the internal appeal procedure was flawed because her right to have her internal appeal heard by a properly functioning body was violated, the Tribunal recalls its statement, in Judgment 2671, consideration 11, that an internal appeal procedure that works properly is an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony in an international organisation and, as a prerequisite of judicial review, an indispensable means of preventing disputes from going outside the organisation. It further stated that the notion of “working well” necessarily encompasses the requirement that the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2671

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4422


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    To support their allegations that the Appeals Committee’s opinion is biased, the complainants submit that the means of redress before the Appeals Committee do not meet the minimum judicial standards. Their allegations of bias are based in some respects on scandalous allegations concerning the Chair of the Appeals Committee. Moreover, the complainants’ allegations of bias on the part of some members of the Appeals Committee are unfounded as they provide no evidence to prove them as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 4097, consideration 14). Additionally, the complainants’ argument that the Appeals Committee’s process does not meet the minimum judicial standards because the President of the EPO sits in the proceedings as a party and judge in his own cause is unsupported with any helpful analysis. Their statement that the Appeals Committee is an advisory body with no competency to make decisions misapprehends the quasi-judicial nature and functions of an internal appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 3785, consideration 6, and 3694, consideration 6). The complainants’ argument that, in deciding to consider their internal appeals in a written procedure without conducting an oral hearing, the Appeals Committee conflates itself with the Tribunal leaving appellants without a fact-finding process does not take into consideration Article 8 of the Implementing Rules for Articles 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations mentioned in consideration 11 of this judgment. In the foregoing premises, the allegations of bias are unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3694, 3785, 4097

    Keywords:

    bias; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4408


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal points out that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision and, in particular, on all the organisation’s arguments (see Judgment 2598, consideration 6).
    In this case, the Tribunal notes that, while the members of the Appeal Board met with the acting Chief of the Human Resources Management Department on 21 July 2017, it was only so that they could understand the ITU’s recruitment procedure. The meeting was thus merely an investigative measure, the purpose of which was to enable the Board to obtain information on the recruitment of officials in general, and not an interview relating specifically to the competition procedure at issue. Therefore, contrary to what the complainant submits, it was not a hearing where she was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed. Consequently, the plea regarding a breach of the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure must be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; internal appeal; internal appeals body;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top