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

Direct appeal to Tribunal (85, 25, 779, 780,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Direct appeal to Tribunal
Total judgments found: 128

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

  • Judgment 4334


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the implicit decision rejecting her appeal against the decision to modify her terms of assignment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; time bar;



  • Judgment 4319


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the designation of his reporting and countersigning officers for a staff report.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, is misplaced because his “claim” of 30 January 2014 did not, in fact, remain unanswered during the 60-day period provided for in that provision. It was rejected on 20 February 2014. It is clear from the case law (see Judgment 3714, considerations 6 and 7, for example) that Article VII, paragraph 3, is applicable where the Administration does not respond to an initial claim within that period. It does not apply to situations where the Administration does respond to the claim within 60 days.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3714

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; implied rejection of internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4271


    129th Session, 2020
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: After the delivery of Judgment 4006, the complainant re-submitted to the new Registrar of the ICC a harassment grievance on the part of the former Registrar. He filed his complaint directly with the Tribunal, considering that he did not receive a final decision on his grievance within the prescribed time limit.

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    In filing his complaint with the Tribunal, the complainant relies on Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. He considers that as he did not receive a final decision within sixty days of the date on which the DAB’s report was submitted to the Registrar, he is entitled to proceed directly to the Tribunal, by filing a complaint within the following ninety-day period.
    This approach is mistaken. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, for example, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. Moreover, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent authority, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of this provision (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034 and 3956). In the present case, it is obvious that the complainant’s grievance has been examined in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005. His complaint therefore cannot be considered receivable under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034, 3956, 3975, 4174

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    If the competent authority is not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances, an official can indeed file a complaint directly with the Tribunal, but only where she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the competent authority was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 3558, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 4270


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, former officials of the World Food Programme whose employment was terminated as a result of the abolition of their posts, allege that they performed functions of a higher level than those of the posts they occupied, and claim compensation as well as reinstatement.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainants are not impugning an express administrative decision concerning them. Instead, they rely on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. However, the same paragraph sets forth a deadline for filing a complaint with the Tribunal. Once the sixty-day period allowed for the taking of the decision by the Administration has expired, the complaint must be filed within the following ninety days. As the Tribunal clarified in Judgments 456 and 2901,
    “the purpose of [the] provisions [of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute] is twofold. Their first aim is to enable an official to defend [her or his] interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administration has failed to take a decision. Their second aim is to prevent a dispute from dragging on indefinitely, which would undermine the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations. It follows from these twin purposes that, if the Administration fails to take a decision on a claim within sixty days, the person submitting it not only can, but must refer the matter to the Tribunal within the following ninety days, i.e. within 150 days of [her or his] claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 2901

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; late filing;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4268


    129th Session, 2020
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who was suspended and revoked for having behaved inappropriately, challenges the delay in the appeal proceedings.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    Under the Tribunal’s case law, an argument based on an inordinate and inexcusable delay may not be accepted unless a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only then that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances. A complainant can make use of this possibility only where she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see Judgments 3558, consideration 9, or 4200, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558, 4200

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;



  • 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 4222


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of UNESCO to award full compensation for the injury suffered as a result of an accident recognized as being service-incurred.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    The case law of the Tribunal establishes that, when under an organization’s Staff Rules and Staff Regulations only serving officials have access to the internal appeal procedures, former officials have no possibility of using them and they are then entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 2840, consideration 21, 3074, consideration 13, or 3156, consideration 9).
    In the case of UNESCO, the Tribunal has already held that Staff Regulation 11.1, Staff Rule 111.1 and the Statutes of the Appeals Board confine access to internal means of redress to “staff members”, in other words solely to serving officials. In pursuance of this case law, it held that a former staff member could not use the internal means of redress to challenge a decision taken after she had left the Organization (see Judgment 2944, consideration 20).
    However, the wording of the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Statutes of the Appeals Board makes it clear that a staff member who “has been separated” may submit an appeal to the Board. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3398, considerations 2 and 6, the internal means of redress established by the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules are open to any person who has been affected by a decision in her or his capacity as an official, even if she or he has since left the Organization. A staff member of UNESCO whose appointment has ended is therefore still entitled to use the internal means of redress if she or he wishes to challenge a decision taken before her or his separation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 2944, 3074, 3156, 3398

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 4219


    129th Session, 2020
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant relies on his right to come directly to the Tribunal. [T]hat right exists apart from a provision in the staff rules or regulations concerning the right of appeal.

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4200


    128th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns an implied decision to dismiss his appeal against the outcome of a recruitment process.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    It is firmly established in the case law that the rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute (see, for example, Judgment 3889, consideration 3). The mere fact that the organization did not respect the time limits set out in its own Staff Rules does not mean that the internal procedure was necessarily paralyzed. [...] Even if the statutory time limit was not respected, which is doubtful in the present case, an argument based on an inordinate and inexcusable delay may only be accepted where the complainant “shows that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only then that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances. A complainant can make use of this possibility only where [she or] he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time [...]” (see Judgment 3558, consideration 9 (emphasis added), and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558, 3889

    Keywords:

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

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4174


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place her on leave without pay upon exhaustion of her sick leave entitlements.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, is misplaced. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3975, consideration 5, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. In the present case, the complainant’s 10 April 2016 protest against the decision of 11 February 2016 was examined and rejected. Accordingly her complaint cannot be considered receivable under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute. Moreover, although the Director-General’s final decision on that appeal was not taken until 26 March 2018, there is nothing in the complainant’s submissions that would lead the Tribunal to conclude that the delay in taking that decision, which UNESCO acknowledges, had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her right of appeal (see Judgment 2367, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2367, 3975

    Keywords:

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

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4125


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that UNESCO disclosed confidential information concerning him to the press without his authorization.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant appears to believe that, because as a former official he does not have access to the internal appeal mechanism, he is entitled to come directly before the Tribunal in order to assert a claim against his former employer without having first sought a decision on the matter from UNESCO. The complainant is mistaken. The provisions of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal make it clear that a complaint must be directed against a decision of the defendant organisation, whether express or implied. This requirement applies equally to serving and former officials, notwithstanding that the latter may be excluded by the staff regulations from pursuing internal appeals, as is the case in UNESCO. Indeed, it is obvious that the organisation must be given an opportunity to address the claims and allegations of a former official before being compelled to participate in judicial proceedings.

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; former official; impugned decision; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 4102


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the ILO’s failure to take a final decision on her job grading appeal and the failure to grant her a contract without limit of time.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The requirement to exhaust internal means of redress has had the effect of paralyzing the exercise of the complainant’s right to have her job grading appeal reviewed and, as an exception to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the complainant had the possibility to file a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgment 3558, under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 4082


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 27 April 2016, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to dismiss his internal complaint of 28 January 2015 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4081


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 29 July 2015, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to reject the internal complaint against the aforementioned decision of 4 August 2014 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4065


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant filed the present complaints with the Tribunal before the related proceedings before the Appeals Committee were concluded. The Appeals Committee subsequently issued reports on the appeals and the Director-General took final decisions on the complainant’s second and third appeals on 20 April and 29 May 2017, respectively. The parties have had the opportunity to provide submissions on the final decisions. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will consider the second and third complaints as directed against the Director-General’s final decisions of 20 April 2017 and 29 May 2017, respectively.

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4056


    126th Session, 2018
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who was summarily dismissed by IOM, impugns a decision of the Regional Director concerning her request for review, which he considered time-barred.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    A staff member of an international organisation cannot of her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgment 3458, consideration 7, as well as Judgments 3190, under 9, and 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein). As the complainant failed to lodge an appeal, she impugns before the Tribunal a decision which cannot be considered as a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. Accordingly, the complaint is clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2811, 3190, 3458

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies;



  • Judgment 4018


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    [The] complaint, which was initially directed against an implied rejection of the internal complaint which [the complainant] had filed against this measure, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision adopted on 28 January 2015, in the course of proceedings, by which the Director General dismissed this internal complaint as unfounded (see, for example, Judgments 3667, under 1, or 3925, under 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667, 3925

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4016


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complaint, though initially directed against an implied rejection of an internal complaint, should now be viewed as challenging the express decision taken during the present proceedings, on 13 December 2016 (see, in particular, Judgment 3667, under 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 3975


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, the successors of a former official of the EPO who passed away, filed a complaint with the Tribunal, considering that there has been an implied decision to reject his internal appeals.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent authority for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute;



  • Judgment 3957


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges an implied rejection of his request for review of a decision of the Administrative Council by the President of the Office.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;

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


 
Last updated: 22.09.2021 ^ top