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
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 3846
124th Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the working conditions to which she was subjected during a secondment and contends that the ITU breached the rules on performance appraisals.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he refusal of the Appeal Board to authorise the filing of a rejoinder by the complainant does not constitute a breach of the adversarial principle, because the [organisation]’s reply did not disclose any genuinely new facts. The Appeal Board was under no obligation to call the witnesses whom the complainant wished it to hear, since it was for that body to decide whether such a step was appropriate.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3831
124th Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.
Consideration 28
Extract:
Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3597, under 2, and the cases cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 3785
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his request for review of an EPO notice concerning patent applications, having regard to the composition of the Appeals Committee.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Two members of the Appeals Committee were volunteers who were not appointed by the Staff Committee as specifically required by the applicable provisions and therefore the composition of the Appeals Committee cannot be considered to be the balanced composition as provided for by the rules.
The Staff Committee, which is directly elected by staff, is responsible for appointing two full members and two alternate members of the Appeals Committee as representative of the collective interests of the staff. The two volunteers did not have that representative capacity.
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 3732
123rd Session, 2017
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the contested JAC member could not be a member of the JAC assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the JAC had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. His impartiality may be open to question (see Judgment 2671, under 10) as there are reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgment 2225, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3703
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension by one month and the subsequent non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is true that, as the complainant submits, an advisory appeal body should not limit its power to review discretionary decisions in the same was as a judicial body would do (see Judgment 3125, under 12), but this was not what the Joint Committee did. The issue it had to resolve, having regard to the all the circumstances of the case, was that of the lawfulness of the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract. It might well have proposed a solution which it deemed to be more consonant with the principle of proportionality, but it was by no means obliged to do so, as it considered that the complainant’s criticism was unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3125
Keywords:
internal appeals body; proportionality;
Judgment 3694
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal against the new Internal Instructions on the patent granting procedure, contending inter alia that the Appeals Committee was improperly composed.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that none of the cases cited by the Appeals Committee dealt with the composition of an internal appeal body. It also observes that considering the quasi-judicial functions of the Appeals Committee, its composition is fundamental and changing it changes the body itself. While it is true that the fundamental functions of that body must not be paralysed, it is also true that the body itself cannot be changed through a changed composition. The balance sought to be achieved by the composition of this body, which includes members appointed by the Administration and the staff representation, is a fundamental guarantee of its impartiality. That balanced composition is an essential feature underpinning its existence. Without it, it is not the Appeals Committee. The case will therefore be sent back to the EPO so that the Appeals Committee, composed in accordance with the applicable rules, may examine the appeal.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeals body;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3621
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges two appointments of the President of the Office to the Internal Appeals Committee on the grounds that they were not preceded by consultation of the General Advisory Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; complaint dismissed; consultation; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3608
121st Session, 2016
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the final administrative decision of the Director General by which he dismissed her internal appeal against the decision not to pay her moral damages for harassment and for injury to her dignity and reputation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The report of the JAB manifests a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration and evaluation of the evidence and whether any of the conduct about which the complainant is aggrieved can be characterised as harassment, a breach of the IAEA’s duty of care or as otherwise unlawful. It is now settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal that in some circumstances reports of internal appeal bodies warrant “considerable deference” (see, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3597
121st Session, 2016
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the relief she was awarded as a result of a harassment complaint she filed with the Federation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that as an administrative body the Appeals Commission has the authority to review the details of appeals and, when necessary, to recommend a precise remedy. According to well settled case law, the findings of such an internal body warrant deference. Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 2295, under 10, 3400, under 6, 3439, under 7, and 3447, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3439, 3447
Keywords:
internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
In its detailed report, the JAAB clearly referred to the complainant’s numerous submissions and allegations and demonstrated in its findings and conclusions that it had indeed understood and considered all the evidence before it, but that it simply found no flaw in the investigation procedure nor in the conclusion that no harassment had occurred. The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence to show that the JAAB’s findings, or the procedure, suffered any material flaw. “Consistent case law holds that ‘harassment and mobbing do not require malice or intent, but that behaviour cannot be considered as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for it’ […]. The complainant did not show that the [JAAB’s] finding and conclusions involved any reviewable error. The situations and events that she cites as examples of mobbing and harassment cannot be considered as such because there is a reasonable explanation for each example.” (See Judgment 3192, under 15.) It is clear from the submissions of both parties, that the situations which the complainant perceived as harassment were quite reasonably explained by the managerial necessities of the Organization. Essentially, the conflict that resulted in the allegations of harassment lay in the poor working relationships that existed between the complainant and other members of the ILO/AIDS team.
[...]
[T]he Tribunal concludes that the complainant has failed to establish that harassment has occurred and finds that there was no manifest error in the JAAB’s weighing of the evidence. The working relations were tense, but not due to misconduct or abnormal behaviour by the complainant’s superiors. It should be noted that the situation could have been avoided if management had been more sensitive to the complainant’s personal needs and history when dealing with her requests and formulating their replies. However, the Tribunal recognises that it is not always possible to cater to the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work being done is often justifiably considered a higher priority over the individual’s personal interests, and therefore it cannot declare that any breach of care has occurred (see for example Judgments 2587, under 10, and 3192, under 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2587, 3192
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeals body; report;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"With regard to the claims against the JAAB’s analysis of the investigation, the Tribunal recalls that it will only interfere in the case of a manifest error in the JAAB’s assessment of the facts (see Judgment 2295, under 10). Though it has read and considered all the elements submitted to it, the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence that was presented to the JAAB. The complainant’s plea concerning the absence of oral hearings is unfounded. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2893, under 5, in relevant part: “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. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, 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 also Judgment 3023, under 11.) The complainant was indeed allowed to submit her written appeal in full, and in fact she also attached hundreds of annexes to be considered. The Tribunal finds that to be more than sufficient opportunity to present her case and considers that the JAAB was fully informed about the case and did not need to grant her request for oral proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 623, 2295, 2893, 3023
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3439
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[I]t is desirable to refer to the approach taken by the Tribunal to findings of fact made by internal appeal bodies such as the HBA. As is evident from the Tribunal’s discussion in Judgment 2295, under 10, it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. Moreover the findings of such an internal appeal body warrant deference. In addition, where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error; mistake of fact;
Judgment 3438
119th Session, 2015
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's request for reintegration was moot and that her other claims were devoid of merit.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant submits that she was deprived of an effective internal appeal. In her opinion, the membership of the Appeal Board and the manner in which it functions made it impossible for that body to provide a thorough statement of the reasons for its opinion, or to arrive at them independently.[...] This plea, which the Tribunal finds to be intemperate and improper, is therefore devoid of merit."
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 3424
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.
Consideration 11(a) and (b)
Extract:
"(a) First, it 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 (see, for example, the above-mentioned Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3067, under 20). This is especially true since internal appeal bodies may normally allow an appeal on grounds of fairness or advisability, whereas the Tribunal must essentially give a ruling on points of law. Consequently, although in this case the complainant himself was mistaken as to his right to resort to the internal appeal procedure, it would be inappropriate to deprive him of the benefit of that procedure.
(b) Secondly, apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). As rightly pointed out by the defendant, the Appeal Board plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary in order to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3423
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.
Consideration 12(a) and (b)
Extract:
"(a) First, it 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 (see, for example, [...] Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3067, under 20). This is especially true since internal appeal bodies may normally allow an appeal on grounds of fairness or advisability, whereas the Tribunal must essentially give a ruling on points of law. Consequently, although in this case the complainants themselves were mistaken as to their right to resort to the internal appeal procedure, it would be inappropriate to deprive them of the benefit of that procedure.
(b) Secondly, apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). As rightly pointed out by the defendant, the Appeal Board plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2781, 2811, 3067
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Consideration 9(b)
Extract:
It is true that the two successive appeals thus lodged by the complainants were not submitted to the authorities competent to hear them. But consistent precedent has it that, although rules of procedure should ordinarily be strictly complied with, they must not set traps for staff members who are defending their rights and therefore they must not be construed with too much formalism. Consequently, an appeal submitted to the wrong authority is not irreceivable on that account and it is for that authority, in such circumstances, to forward it to the one which is competent, within the organisation, to hear it (see, for example, Judgments 1832, under 6, 2882, under 6, or 3027, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3027
Keywords:
competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3400
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision in relation to the FAO's response to her harassment claim and her performance appraisal for 2009.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he report of the Committee manifests a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of the evidence and applicable principles. Its conclusions are rational and balanced. In these circumstances its findings warrant “considerable deference” (see Judgment 2295, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 3369
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the application of deductions to her dependant’s allowance for participation in a strike and the amount deducted from most elements of her remuneration.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he complainant is manifestly misguided in her belief that she can accuse the members appointed by the Staff Committee of failing to defend her during her hearing before the Committee, since those members, who are required just like other Committee members to execute their duties in a fully independent manner, cannot be expected to perform such a role."
Keywords:
independence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3354
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside the decision dismissing the complainant’s request for the reimbursement of pharmaceutical costs on the ground that the case should have been referred to the Medical Committee.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A hearing of any internal appeal body provides an opportunity for the parties to articulate more fully their case and to answer questions from the members of the appeal body."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3318
117th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision of the Director-General to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In its reply, the Organization maintains that the Director-General was right in considering that the Appeals Committee had overstepped its mandate. To support this view it merely refers to the case law concerning the limitations to which the Tribunal’s own power of review is subject. In so doing, it commits an error in law. As a matter of fact, the power of such a review body extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to it and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions.
Keywords:
internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10
Keywords:
advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;
Judgment 3253
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised that internal appeals are an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony (see, for example, Judgment 3184, consideration 15). Also, the internal appeal process is ordinarily an extremely significant element of the entire system of review of administrative decisions affecting the rights of staff employed by organisations which have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3222, consideration 9). Moreover, every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on his or her performance on which her or his career may depend (see, for example, Judgment 3241, consideration 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184, 3222, 3241
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
