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

Report of the internal appeals body (819,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Report of the internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 29

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4791


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4789


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4726


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4725


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4721


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4713


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016 be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4699


    136th Session, 2023
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal considers that the reasoning on which the [impugned] decision [...] was based constitutes a sufficient response to the various arguments raised by the complainant in his internal complaint [...]. In her decision, the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit referred to the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes, explaining that she endorsed the view of the two committee members who considered the internal complaint to be unfounded, and this in itself met the requirements of the case law (see Judgments 4473, considerations 4 and 5, and 4281, consideration 11). In addition, she set out the reasons why she considered that due process had been followed and why any challenge to the medical aspects of matter was now time-barred. This reasoning was sufficient and adequate in view of the complainant’s arguments.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4281, 4473

    Keywords:

    motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4674


    136th Session, 2023
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [I]t is desirable to refer to the role of reports or opinions of internal appeal bodies in the Tribunal’s consideration of issues raised in a complaint. It has been put in a variety of ways, and comparatively recently in Judgment 4644, consideration 5:
    “[If the internal appeal body’s opinion] is balanced and considered, [...] its findings and conclusions must be given considerable deference (see, for example, Judgments 4488, consideration 7, 4407, consideration 3, and 3858, consideration 8).”
    Indeed, also comparatively recently, the Tribunal said, in relation to both the opinion of an internal appeals body and an investigative body established by the rules of the organization concerned, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12:
    “According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), ‘where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)’. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
    It is true that the Board of Appeal did not hear the witnesses in the present case. It did, however, review a large amount of documentary material, including the records of interviews, and made findings of fact based on this material. The opinion of the Board of Appeal is, on some relevant matters, balanced and considered and has to be given the deference spoken of in the Tribunal’s case law.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3593, 3757, 3858, 4024, 4026, 4091, 4237, 4407, 4488, 4644

    Keywords:

    evidence; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4660


    136th Session, 2023
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [T]he opinion of the Joint Appeals Committee of [...] shows that the Committee did not respond to the complainant’s procedural objections, including those repeated in the complaint before the Tribunal and discussed above. The Committee merely stated in its opinion, without even mentioning these objections, that “the Organization [...] applied the established procedure under the Staff Manual for imposing disciplinary measures, including the establishment of a JDC [Joint Disciplinary Committee]”. Such a brief and generic formulation does not provide any insight into the reasons why the Committee dismissed the objections in question or even make it possible to ascertain whether it actually examined them.

    Keywords:

    report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4637


    135th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant also seeks an order setting aside the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, impugned by the complainant, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, in respect of the EPO’s Appeals Committee, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the Appeals Committee null and void is irreceivable as the Appeals Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. This is equally true of an opinion of the Appraisals Committee. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3171, consideration 13).
    It follows that this claim is irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4392

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4615


    135th Session, 2023
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

    Considerations 20 and 23

    Extract:

    The case law relied upon by the organisation (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18, cited below), correctly interpreted, does not allow exceptions to the necessity of a written record being made available to the concerned official, but only approves of a written record as an alternative to cross-examination or to a verbatim record. Indeed, the Tribunal held in that judgment:
    “The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses [...], to object to evidence [...] or to have a verbatim record of the evidence [...] These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out [...] inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...] In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them.”
    In the precedent quoted above, the complainant was informed of the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by written records before the decision; in the present case, the complainant acknowledged the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by means of the Advisory Board’s report, not during the proceedings but only when that report was provided to her attached to the termination decision, that is to say at a stage when she could no longer usefully comment on them.
    It can be inferred from the quoted case law that two principles must be respected in an adversarial procedure: (i) not only must the oral evidence gathered be recorded in writing, even though not necessarily by a verbatim record; (ii) but also any evidence gathered must be submitted to the person concerned, for her or his comment, before the decision is adopted.
    In the present case, the organisation failed to comply with both principles, as there was no written record of Mr B.’s statement and this statement was not disclosed to the complainant before she was notified of the decision endorsing the Advisory Board’s report.
    […]
    In light of consideration 20 […], the Advisory Board’s recommendation is flawed with regard to the assessment of offensive act no. 1 for lack of written record. However, this flaw is not decisive in order to declare that the Advisory Board’s recommendation was unlawful in its entirety. As noted in considerations 21 and 22 [...], the Advisory Board’s finding that the complainant’s conduct amounted to harassment was based on multiple episodes and related evidence sufficient for the purpose of the adoption of measures aimed at the protection of the victim of harassment. Therefore, the Board’s report deserves considerable deference (see Judgments 4488, consideration 7, and 4180, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 4180, 4488

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence; report of the internal appeals body; witness;



  • Judgment 4580


    135th Session, 2023
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In support of their claims, the complainants first submit that their right to an effective internal appeal was breached in that the Appeals Committee’s opinion of 10 June 2021 did not properly address their plea alleging unlawful infringement of their acquired rights, the central element of their appeal submissions. They criticise the Committee for not stating why it rejected that plea and simply leaving it to the Tribunal to rule on its merits. However, although it is true that the Appeals Committee stated in its report that “this question must be settled by the [Tribunal]” – with the apparent intention of making clear that only the Tribunal could provide a conclusive reply – it also stated that it “[was] of the view that [...] the combined measures leading to the retirement contribution rate rising from 14.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent [did] not breach acquired rights”, having justified that finding by reference, in particular, to the Tribunal’s case law setting out the applicable legal tests. The complainants are therefore wrong to argue that the Appeals Committee did not properly address the plea in question.

    Keywords:

    report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4572


    134th Session, 2022
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recission in which he described the moral injury caused to him by the entry into force of new regulatory provisions.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant seeks the setting aside of the Appeals Committee’s opinion that preceded the decision of 16 June 2021.That claim must also be rejected as clearly irreceivable because, according to established case law, such an opinion does not constitute an act adversely affecting the complainant and therefore cannot be appealed (see Judgment 4477, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4477

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4559


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [I]t [is not] appropriate [...] to grant [the complainant's] request for the IAC’s opinion to be set aside as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). This request is therefore irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4556


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks to be provided with a copy of his old medical file.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] seeks the setting aside of the IAC’s opinion. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). It follows that this request is irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4507


    134th Session, 2022
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, the reasons given by the internal appeal body must respond to all the issues raised by the appellant, and therefore must be complete in substance (see Judgment 4063, consideration 5). However, it is neither unlawful nor inappropriate that the reasons given by the internal appeal body are succinct (see Judgment 4165, consideration 8), provided that they are adequate. The Tribunal notes that the Appeals Council declared in its report that it had examined all the relevant documents and submissions of the parties, and referred to all relevant facts. The conclusions in the report, articulated in four bullet points, are adequate despite their brevity and address all the issues raised by the complainant.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4165

    Keywords:

    report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4488


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her to another post.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608, 4407

    Keywords:

    deference; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4477


    133rd Session, 2022
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims compensation in lieu of notice of termination of appointment for reasons of health and the reimbursement of the days of annual leave he alleges that he had accrued before that termination.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [W]ith regard to the complainant’s claim that the Appeal Board report of 2 February 2018, on which the impugned decision of 3 April 2018 is based, be set aside on account of a formal flaw [...] the Tribunal observes that an opinion issued by an appeal body is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a decision on the appeal which does not itself cause injury to the complainant. Claims against it are therefore irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 4392

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • 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.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal observes that of the eight-member Committee, four were in favour of dismissing the internal complaint. In this respect, the Tribunal refers to Judgment 4281, consideration 11, which states, in a situation where two opinions enjoyed equal support as in this case:
    “In stating, in the decision of 13 December 2016, that he ‘share[d] the opinion of [those members]’, the Director General endorsed their reasoning. The plea alleging a failure to state reasons is therefore unfounded.”
    Thus, the impugned decision of 21 February 2019 not only endorses the findings of the four members of the Committee who opposed the recognition of serious illness, but also provides further justification for the choice to accept the negative opinion and specifies the reasons for the complainant’s internal complaint being dismissed.

    Keywords:

    motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;



  • 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 5

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] asks the Tribunal to set aside the report of the Joint Committee on various bases. This request is however irreceivable as the Joint Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions (see, for example, Judgment 4392, consideration 5). The Tribunal will merely determine whether, on the basis of the complainant’s allegations, the procedure of the Joint Committee was flawed, which may have had an impact on the impugned decision and warrant its setting aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4392

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top