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

Delay (111,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Delay
Total judgments found: 141

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

  • Judgment 4347


    131st Session, 2021
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.

    Consideration 32

    Extract:

    The complainant claims that excessive delays throughout the various stages of the proceedings against him caused him injury and warrant an award of damages. Although the overall duration of the proceedings may appear lengthy, the Tribunal notes that they were complex and involved investigation into allegations against both the complainant and Mr N. and multiple stages of review by various authorities. Therefore, no award of damages is warranted on this basis.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal;

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    The complainant also submits that the decision is vitiated by an error of law, as the Board of Appeal was improperly composed and the appointment of a new Board of Appeal led to an egregious delay in the proceedings. The Tribunal finds that the composition of the Board of Appeal which reviewed his appeal was lawful and the delays in reconfiguring the Board of Appeal were not egregious. The length of the delay was principally determined by the complainant’s request to change the composition of the panel which was proposed to him on 26 May 2016. He requested the change as he objected to the proposal that the Board of Appeal members remain on the Board of Appeal beyond the expiry of their mandates, despite assurances that they had agreed to the extension of their appointments at the Organization’s request and with the knowledge and concurrence of the Staff Association. Therefore, the appeal was stayed, pending new elections for the Board of Appeal members nominated by the Staff Association. While it took a year to finalize the composition of the new panel, the Board of Appeal, once properly composed, rendered its preliminary report within three months and its final report within five months of receiving the Director’s 27 December 2017 decision. Moreover, the complainant has not provided convincing evidence of any negative effect on him caused by the delay in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; delay; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4304


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General to cancel the “Falls Below Expectations” overall rating in her 2014 performance appraisal report and to restore her entitlements as in the case of satisfactory performance, but not to award her damages or costs.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The consistent case law has it that “[t]he amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal” (see Judgment 4100, consideration 7, and the cases cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100

    Keywords:

    delay; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4284


    130th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to find that UNESCO has failed to execute Judgment 3936 and to order the Organization to review her case.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [A]lthough the application for execution has become moot, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to award 7,000 euros in moral damages to the complainant, who had to wait more than 24 months for a new decision, which she received only after reminding the Organization and lodging an application for execution [...] with the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    delay; execution of judgment; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4238


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] contends that the GBA failed to consider the excessive delay in processing both reclassification requests (over 8 months for the first reclassification exercise and over 15 months for the second) just for him “to hear a pre-intended negative outcome”. The complainant raised what he refers to as the “Torturous Delays in Processing of Reclassification of [his] Position” in his appeal to the GBA dated 21 March 2017. The GBA did not address the issue of delay. In all of the circumstances, particularly given the two reclassification exercises, the delay was neither unreasonable nor excessive. The plea therefore fails.

    Keywords:

    delay;



  • Judgment 4237


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision – taken after his resignation – to find him guilty of serious misconduct, and the decision to withhold from his separation entitlements an amount corresponding to financial losses allegedly incurred by WHO as a result of his misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    Taking into account all of the circumstances, including the factual and legal complexity of the proceedings, the number of steps in the process (the IOS investigation, the two appeals before the RBA and the appeal before the GBA), the total length of the procedure was not unreasonable. The claim for moral damages for excessive delay is rejected.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4226


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute is clear in its terms. It provides that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless [...] the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. Article VII, paragraph 1, is satisfied when the complainant’s internal appeal has been paralysed (see, for example, Judgments 3685, consideration 6, 3302, consideration 4, and 2939, consideration 9) and the complainant has done her or his utmost to have the internal appeal resolved (see, for example, Judgments 2039, consideration 4, and 1674, consideration 6(b)). This case law simply identifies circumstances where the complainant can be treated as having exhausted internal means of redress, thus satisfying the provisions of the Article notwithstanding that, as a matter of fact, either an internal appeal body has not addressed the appeal or the executive head of the organisation has not done so at the time the complaint was filed with the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 2039, 2939, 3302, 3685

    Keywords:

    delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4184


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant mainly challenges the alleged misuse of short-term contracts in her case, the non-extension of her last contract and the allegedly incorrect classification of her job.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, staff members are entitled to expect their requests to be dealt with by the competent authorities within a reasonable period of time (see, for example, Judgment 3773, consideration 5). In the present case, the complainant sent her grievance to HRD on 26 June 2013 and it was not until 19 November 2014 that HRD informed her that she should no longer expect to receive a reply from the Organization to her grievance. The Tribunal considers that the fact that the Organization did not give the complainant any reply and, moreover, that it waited more than a year to inform her that this would be the case, after having informed her that she would receive a reply, constitutes an unacceptable attitude on the part of the Organization, which reflects a lack of respect for the complainant. This has resulted in moral injury that requires compensation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3773

    Keywords:

    delay; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4178


    128th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a promotion in the 2014 professional promotion exercise.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    It is well settled in the case law that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organisation owes to its staff members (see, for example, Judgments 3160, consideration 16, 3582, consideration 3, and 3688, consideration 11). In Judgment 3160, consideration 17, the Tribunal also observed that “[t]he amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations” namely, the length of the delay and the effect of the delay. The complainant submits that he has suffered pain and distress, including as a result of the delay in the internal grievance procedures. It is observed that the FAO did not make a submission in relation to the delay in the appeal process. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 3582, 3688

    Keywords:

    delay; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4111


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [...] Although it must be taken into account that the complainant took a month to provide his comments and that HRD asked the investigator to respond to them, which may have taken some time, the Tribunal considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
    The moral injury thus caused to the complainant will be fairly redressed by awarding him compensation in the amount of 1,000 Swiss francs.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4109


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [I]n view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4108


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [I]n view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the conclusions of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases must be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation;



  • Judgment 4090


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the processing of his application for a disability benefit and the calculation of his sick leave entitlements.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The complainant is entitled to moral damages for the delay in the consideration of his application for a disability benefit arising from the IAEA’s breach of its duty of care. The Tribunal takes into account the fact that, but for the delay, he may have been in receipt of the disability benefit earlier.

    Keywords:

    delay; disability benefit; duty of care; moral injury;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he final constitution of the Board [was delayed] for almost four months. This was an unreasonably long period and delayed the resolution of the complainant’s application, which was ultimately successful, for a disability benefit. While the complainant has not discharged the burden of proving retaliation, bias and prejudice, the IAEA is liable for the consequences of this delay involving, as it does, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant, a ground relied on by the complainant in his fifth argument (see Judgment 2936, consideration 19). The IAEA, through its officers, was obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the complainant’s request for review of the decision to refuse him a disability benefit was dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If, as happened, an impasse about who should be the Chair arose between a member of the Board nominated by the staff member and a temporary member [...] of the Board nominated by the Administration who also had the responsibility to nominate another member as his own replacement, then steps should have been taken with great expedition to nominate the member to replace him.

    Keywords:

    breach; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; disability benefit; duty of care; medical board; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 4059


    127th Session, 2019
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to affiliate her to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant does not dispute the grounds on which the finding of irreceivability was made. However, she asks the Tribunal to consider her complaint as an “exceptional case”. The relevant case law of the Tribunal consistently states:
    “Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable ‘if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits’ [...].”
    (Judgment 3758, under 10; see also Judgment 3687, under 9, and the cases cited therein.)
    In Judgment 3758, under 11, the Tribunal added:
    “As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. ‘When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective.’ (See Judgment 3439, under 4.)”
    However, the case law also recognizes that there are exceptions to the requirement of the strict adherence to the applicable time limits. In Judgment 3687, under 10, the Tribunal stated:
    “[I]n very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
    (See also Judgment 3758, under 12.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3140, 3405, 3439, 3687, 3758

    Keywords:

    delay; exception; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 4026


    126th Session, 2018
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

    Considerations 13-14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
    “[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
    [...]The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102

    Keywords:

    delay; promotion;



  • Judgment 4024


    126th Session, 2018
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
    “[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
    [...] The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102

    Keywords:

    delay; promotion;



  • Judgment 4015


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him damages for the alleged leaking of confidential information concerning him.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [I]n the complaint form submitted to the Tribunal, the complainant seeks “moral damages for the delay in the internal complaint and appeals process”. As the complainant did not make any submissions in his brief in relation to this claim, it will not be considered.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal procedure; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4014


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to investigate his harassment complaint by an external investigator and not by an investigation panel provided for in the applicable rules.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]n the complaint form submitted to the Tribunal, the complainant seeks “moral damages for the delay in the internal complaint and appeals process”. As the complainant did not make any submissions in his brief in relation to this claim, it will not be considered.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal procedure; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4013


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his harassment complaint in accordance with the applicable rules.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [I]n the complaint form submitted to the Tribunal, the complainant seeks “moral damages for the delay in the internal complaint and appeals process”. As the complainant did not make any submissions in his brief in relation to this claim, it will not be considered.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal procedure; moral injury;



  • Judgment 3970


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to prolong his service beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Considerations 13-14

    Extract:

    The complainant also claims compensation for the material injury arising from the fact that he was informed too late of the dismissal of his request for a prolongation of his service to be able to cancel in a timely fashion the lease on his accommodation and the related telephone and Internet subscriptions.
    It must be observed in this respect that the procedure for considering requests by members of boards of appeal for a prolongation of service prescribed by Communiqué No. 2/08 of 11 July 2008 does not specify an exact time limit in which the competent authority must decide on a request submitted to it. Moreover, since such a request can be granted only on the condition that a prolongation of service is in the interest of the service, a decision can logically be taken only on a date sufficiently close to that on which the employee concerned will reach normal retirement age for that authority to be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such a prolongation in the light of that criterion (see [...] Judgment 3214, under 16).
    Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Organisation, in view of its duty of care towards its employees, to ensure that members of boards of appeal who submit requests for their service to be prolonged are informed of the outcome thereof sufficiently far in advance to enable them to make adequate arrangements for their personal lives after they attain normal retirement age.
    [...]
    In this case, the complainant was not informed of the rejection of his request until 21 October 2014, 40 days before he was retired on 30 November.
    The evidence makes it plain that this did not allow him to terminate the lease for his accommodation and the abovementioned subscriptions in a timely fashion. [...] The EPO will therefore be ordered to pay the complainant the sum, in the duly substantiated amount of 2,005 euros, which he claims as compensation for the material injury which he suffered under this head.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3214

    Keywords:

    age limit; delay; extension beyond retirement age; material damages; refusal;



  • Judgment 3967


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The claim for moral damages for the excessive delay in the internal appeal proceedings is well founded as it is clear that the EPO breached its obligation to ensure that its internal procedure moved forward with reasonable speed (see, for example, Judgment 2197, consideration 33). [...] That period of more than six years in the internal appeal proceedings constituted excessive delay, even taking into consideration the complainant’s illness and the efforts which were made to amicably settle the matter. For this, the complainant will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros, particularly given the length of the delay and the impact of that delay on him in his personal circumstances.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197

    Keywords:

    delay; delay in internal procedure; internal procedure;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top