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

Composition of the internal appeals body (813, 82,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Composition of the internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 51

1, 2, 3 | next >

  • Judgment 4419


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; member of an internal body;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In a judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020, Judgment 4322, there was a conclusive determination that staff members in the position of the complainants had no cause of action to challenge, relevantly, the appointment of Vice-Presidents to the GAC (see Judgment 4322, considerations 8 and 9). Indeed the three complainants in the present proceedings were complainants in the proceedings leading to Judgment 4322. The question of whether the complainants had a cause of action was raised by the Tribunal of its own motion notwithstanding it had not been raised by the parties before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis of the Tribunal in Judgment 4322. Suffice it to note that there are no material factual or legal differences between the circumstances addressed in that judgment and those of the present case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322

    Keywords:

    cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; member of an internal body; precedent;



  • Judgment 4318


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests his objectives for the reporting exercise January to December 2015 and the composition of the Appeals Committee that issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The allegation that the Appeals Committee was improperly composed due to three of the members having been members of the Committee which was found to be unlawfully composed in Judgment 3785, is unfounded. The composition of that prior Committee was found to be unlawful as it breached the applicable rules in force at the material time, not for any reason relating to the individual members.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3785

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest;



  • 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 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 4049


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Appeals Committee which issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.

    Considerations 5-6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s examination is limited to considering the provision in force at the material time [...].
    At the material time, Article 5 of the Implementing Rules concerning the appointment of members of the Appeals Committee provided for the appointment of full members and alternate members.
    The Tribunal is satisfied that two of the four members were appointed by the President [...] and two were chosen “[b]y way of exception” among eligible staff members [...], and considers that the Committee’s balanced composition was guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of Article 36(2)(a) of the Service Regulations, which are not ambiguous. The Appeals Committee was competent to rule on the legality of its composition, which is a condition for its competence. The Appeals Committee’s decision to apply the summary procedure was a proper exercise of its power of evaluation.

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4035


    126th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant accuses her former supervisor of moral harassment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [A]n official’s right to be informed of the composition of the Appeals Board, the main purpose of which is to enable members of the Board to be recused, does not entitle her or him to be given the names of the Administration’s representative and observer, who are not members of the Board.

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; right to information;



  • Judgment 4001


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    These circumstances are not the same as those in Judgment 3184, for example, in which the Tribunal stated, in consideration 15, that if a member of an internal appeal board had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new internal appeal board to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 3888


    124th Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for misconduct.

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The complainant objects to two deputy members participating in the disciplinary proceedings in place of two members who were not available for the rescheduled hearing date. The Tribunal notes that the complainant was notified on 3 February 2014 of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee, including of the names of the Chairman, the four members, and the four deputy members. She had five days from that notification to object to any of the members or deputy members in accordance with Article 98(5) of the Service Regulations, which provides, in relevant part, that “[w]ithin five days of the drawing of lots for forming the Disciplinary Committee, the employee concerned may make objection in respect of any of its members other than the Chairman”. As she did not object to the deputy members at that time, she was time-barred from objecting to their participation at the later date when she was informed that they would attend the hearing in place of the two unavailable members.

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure;



  • Judgment 3422


    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 Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [The complainant submits that] the composition of the selection panel was flawed. One member of the panel was a person who had been two levels below him in the administrative hierarchy and the complainant had sided with this person’s first level supervisor in not increasing her performance rating. She was thus, the complainant submits, “in a conflicted position”. The complainant also points to the fact that the majority of the members of the selection panel were more junior than him and not able to effectively evaluate his qualifications, experience and performance. Also, changes were made to the recruitment panel which he had not been afforded the opportunity to challenge. Several other specific complaints were made by the complainant about the selection process. However what the complainant singularly fails to do is demonstrate that it is probable some or a number of members
    of the selection panel were biased against him or that the panel or selection process was otherwise flawed.

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; composition of the internal appeals body; flaw; selection board;



  • Judgment 3214


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
    "In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."

    Keywords:

    age limit; composition of the internal appeals body; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 3184


    114th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him without pay, alleging that it was taken in breach of the rule against double jeopardy.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The complainant objected, in his memorandum to the Secretary of the Appeals Committee, that three members of the Committee had already considered the same facts in a previous appeal. [...] The Tribunal considers that the specific rule relating to disqualification of members of the Appeals Committee stated in Manual paragraph 331.2.31 is not a complete and exhaustive statement of the circumstances in which a member is disqualified from hearing an appeal. The fundamental function of the internal appeal procedure, which is “an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony” (see Judgment 1317, under 31), requires 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” (see Judgment 2671, under 11). If a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new Appeals Committee to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Manual paragraph 331.2.31
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 267, 1317

    Keywords:

    bias; composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3158


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant only became aware of the substitution of one of the members of the Internal Appeals Committee (which occurred after the hearings) when he received a copy of the Internal Appeals Committee’s opinion. For the sake of transparency and due process, the complainant should have been informed at the time of the substitution so that he could exercise his right to contest the composition. The fact that the alternate member voted in the complainant’s favour does not redeem that flaw. Moreover, the alternate member did not attend and participate in the hearing, whereas his participation could have changed or influenced the Internal Appeals Committee’s final opinion."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2996


    110th Session, 2011
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 15-16

    Extract:

    "While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671

    Keywords:

    advisory body; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; exception; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; official; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard;



  • Judgment 2940


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2835


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    "The complainant takes issue with the composition of the Selection Board. [...] He relies on Judgment 1549, under 12, where the Tribunal stated that «[...] after the process of selection has begun the terms of competition may not be changed [...]»."
    "The Tribunal rejects this argument. First, the complainant's reliance on Judgment 1549 is misplaced. While the cited passage does refer to a selection decision, the composition of the Selection Board is not one of the «terms of competition»."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549

    Keywords:

    competition; composition of the internal appeals body; due process; selection board;



  • Judgment 2767


    106th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7(b)

    Extract:

    "The Director-General did not rely on any special feature of the case in order to justify his refusal to follow the recommendation of the Board [to inform the complainant of the names of the IRG members who had examined her case]. In this respect, the argument that the complainant did in fact find out who was on the IRG panel at the hearing on 7 July 2006 is inoperative [...]. It must be concluded that the Director-General refused without good reason to rectify a procedural flaw by not informing the complainant of the identity of the IRG members."

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; organisation's duties; recommendation; right to reply; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2671


    104th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 1317, under 31, the Tribunal stated: 'An internal appeal procedure that works properly is an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony in an international organisation [...].'
    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): 1317

    Keywords:

    bias; composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "A reasonable person, knowing that a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved. So much was decided in Judgment 179 in which it was said that 'failing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality'. [...] It follows that those persons who had been members of the first Appeals Committee were disqualified from membership of the second Committee."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 179

    Keywords:

    bias; challenge of member; composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 2520


    100th Session, 2006
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 8-9

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that candidates are entitled to equal treatment in a competition for an advertised post (see Judgment 1990). It is an important aspect of the principle of equality that all candidates be considered objectively. Necessarily, a person's candidacy should not be evaluated by a person whose impartiality is open to question on reasonable grounds. The rule applies not only to those making or participating in the actual decision but also to those who have an advisory role, for they may exert influence on the ultimate decision (see Judgment 179). [...] To say that a person should not participate in the selection of candidates for an advertised position if his or her impartiality is reasonably open to question is not to say that a person should not have had a professional relationship with, or even supervisory responsibility for, one or more of the candidates. However, if the relationship goes beyond the proper bounds of a professional or supervisory relationship, there may well be reasonable grounds to question the impartiality of the person concerned."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 1990

    Keywords:

    advisory body; bias; candidate; case law; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; equal treatment; post; selection board; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2457


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
    Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."

    Keywords:

    candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;



  • Judgment 2424


    98th Session, 2005
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;



  • Judgment 2146


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    The Invalidity Committee was constituted of two doctors respectively appointed by the organization and the complainant and of a third member chosen by mutual agreement between the first two doctors. The doctor appointed by the complainant resigned. He appointed another but challenges the fact that the third member was not rechosen. "It is clear [...] that if a member is replaced, the appointment should be by the same person or persons who originally appointed the member who has left. The complainant is wrong to liken the Invalidity Committee to an arbitral body that must always have representation from each side and must always be presided by someone chosen by the parties' representatives. The Invalidity Committee is a statutory body and once regularly constituted, it has the powers vested in it by the rules. The appointments to it do not become invalid simply by reason of the departure of a member."

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; disability benefit; invalidity; medical board; pension entitlements; resignation;

1, 2, 3 | next >


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top