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: 145

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



  • Judgment 3498


    120th Session, 2015
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant is seeking retroactive admission into the EMBL pension scheme as from the commencement of his service at EMBL.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; pension entitlements;



  • Judgment 3463


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints are summarily dismissed because, by the time they were filed, there had been a decision on the complainants' claim, which precludes the challenging of an implied rejection of their requests for review.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The evidence provided by the complainants shows that, at its 136th meeting [in] June 2013 (before these complaints were filed), the Administrative Council decided to forward their requests for review to the President of the Office. Thus, by the time they filed their complaints in July, August and September of that year, there had been a decision on their claim within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, namely to undertake a review, which, according to Tribunal’s well established case law, precludes reliance on that provision (see, for example, Judgment 786, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 786

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3458


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints, clearly irreceivable, are summarily dismissed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgments 3190, under 9, and 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein). According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint shall not be receivable unless a final decision is impugned, the person concerned having exhausted such other means of resisting as are open to her or him under the applicable staff regulations (see, for example, Judgment 163).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 163, 2811, 3190

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 3456


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints, essentially identical and clearly irreceivable, were summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "On the guidance of Judgments 3301, under 5, and 2479, under 2, for example, the Tribunal considers that these complaints constitute an abuse of process for the following reasons. First, they are essentially identical complaints. In the second place, they are clearly irreceivable on a number of grounds. The first is that the complaints do not impugn final decisions, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 2479, 2948, 3050, 3301, 3302 and 3326). Moreover, the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body, constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see Judgment 2948, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2479, 2948, 3050, 3301, 3302, 3326

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; vexatious complaint;



  • Judgment 3442


    119th Session, 2015
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    "[B]efore the complaint was brought directly to the Tribunal, the complainant had to inform the OPCW of his continued interest in his internal appeal, thus putting it on notice that he wanted the process to proceed. The Tribunal will assume jurisdiction if it appears that a complainant’s rights in the internal appeal process have been paralysed.
    The evidence does not reveal circumstances that show that the complainant’s rights were paralysed in the internal appeal process."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 3435


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the complaints were irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complainants assert that they did their utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal appeals procedure and that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, they were allowed to file directly with the Tribunal as the requirement to exhaust all internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralyzing the exercise of their rights. The Tribunal is of the opinion that even though the submission of the Organisation’s position paper was already delayed by the time the complainants
    wrote to the IAC Chairman in December 2009, and the additional six months for the expected date of submission could be considered excessive depending on the circumstances, the complainants were involved in a dialogue with the Organisation which they abruptly ended by applying directly to the Tribunal upon receiving notice of the Organisation’s intent to submit its position paper in mid-2010. Having received confirmation of the Organisation’s intent to continue the internal appeal, the complainants should have either waited for the Organisation’s position paper of June to continue the internal appeal process, or should have requested a more immediate submission date. The Tribunal notes that, though the appeal process was delayed, it was active, and the complainants could have a reasonable expectation of receiving a final decision which they could then contest before the Tribunal if they found it necessary. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider that the complainants had truly done their utmost to pursue their internal appeal and the complaints are considered premature and must be dismissed as irreceivable for failure to exhaust all means of internal redress. As they are irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Tribunal shall examine neither other issues of receivability, nor the merits of the complaints."

    Keywords:

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

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that this case hinges on the question of receivability. Complainants shall have access to the Tribunal in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal which provides that a “complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. However, the Tribunal notes that it is important for the parties to attempt to find an internal solution to disputes, particularly as internal appeals bodies are competent to comment not only on the lawfulness of administrative decisions, but also to suggest alternative solutions. This alone can sometimes be enough to resolve a dispute, and in cases which are further pursued, the Tribunal should have at its disposal full records on the administrative handling of the dispute. In the present case, the complainants filed their complaints in March 2010 directly before the Tribunal, upon receiving notice that the Organisation’s position paper on their internal appeal would not be filed until mid-2010. The position paper was filed as indicated."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 3428


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The complainants’ reliance on the case law established in Judgments 408, 1684, 2132 and 2443, according to which an exception to the rule that internal means of redress must be exhausted can be made if an appeal is not dealt with by the competent bodies within a reasonable period of time, is misplaced. In this connection, the complainants refer to the “incredible delays” with which the Internal Appeals Committee of the EPO usually considers the cases submitted to it, but it must be found that this criticism is irrelevant in the instant cases where the complainants waited for scarcely one or two months following the referral to the Committee before bringing the case directly to the Tribunal. Clearly the fact that their appeals were not examined during this brief interlude could not in any way be described as a breach of the Organisation’s duty to deal with them within a reasonable period of time.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 408, 1684, 2132, 2443

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    [T]he rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. Thus, the possibility of filing a complaint against an implied decision of rejection is governed solely by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that “[w]hen the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”, the person concerned may have recourse to the Tribunal. Article 109 of the Service Regulations could not therefore apply here. Moreover, that article unlawfully provides for a period of “two months” which is different, albeit only slightly, from the sixty days specified in the Statute. When, before the expiry of the latter time limit, an organisation forwards an appeal to the competent advisory appeal body or takes any other action to deal with it, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal which forestalls an implied rejection that could be challenged before the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 2948 or 3034).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article 109 du Statut des fonctionnaires

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute;



  • Judgment 3427


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    [I]t can be seen that the complaint was filed before it was properly before the Administrative Council for consideration.
    Clearly the deemed rejection upon which the complainant relies was not engaged in these circumstances and the complaint is irreceivable as the internal means of redress have not been exhausted.

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies;



  • 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 10

    Extract:

    "As there was no response to the appeal [...] within sixty days of the date on which it was lodged, pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal it must be deemed to have been implicitly rejected, and that implied decision may be impugned by the complainants before the Tribunal.
    In this case, the time limit in question had not actually expired when the complaints were filed with the Tribunal, but given that the aforementioned decision arose in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the complaints, though filed prematurely, may be considered to have been corrected in this respect (for a similar case, see Judgment 3356, under 15 and 16)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3356

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 3409


    119th Session, 2015
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal awarded the complainants material and moral damages stemming from IFAD's unlawful decisions and violation of its duty of care.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that the complainants’ claims against the abolition of their posts are irreceivable, in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, for failure to exhaust all internal means of redress. While the complainants submit that they were only later aware of the full damage caused to them by the abolition of their posts, they each should have filed an internal appeal (as IFAD did not authorize them to challenge the issue directly before the Tribunal) challenging the 9 August 2012 decisions insofar as the decisions declared their requests for facilitation concerning the abolition of their posts to be time-barred."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; time bar;



  • Judgment 3407


    119th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the implied decision to reject his claim against the new calculation of his pension rights.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [I]t must be recalled that the rules governing the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. In particular, the possibility of lodging a complaint against an implied rejection is governed solely by the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that an official may file a complaint “[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”. When an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent advisory appeal body, this step itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of these provisions, which forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681 or 3034).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 3399


    119th Session, 2015
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's claims were all irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complainant did not cure the failure to exhaust her internal remedies by obtaining a waiver from the Director-General to file the challenge directly to the Tribunal pursuant to Staff Rule 111.2(b) (see, for example, Judgment 3190, under 9). The complainant was not entitled to infer the Director-General’s waiver from the absence of a reply to her request (see, for example, Judgment 458, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 458, 3190

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 3398


    119th Session, 2015
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations. The only exception allowed to this rule is where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant he or she does not have access to the internal appeal body, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure, or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgment 2912, under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2912

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 3374


    118th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal set aside for procedural flaw the impugned decision rejecting the complainant’s request for the reclassification of his post.

    Considerations 5-6

    Extract:

    The ILO argues that the complaint is irreceivable on the ground that the complainant, who puts forward arguments “pertain[ing] to an alleged procedural flaw”, could not appeal directly to the Tribunal but should have filed a grievance with the JAAB, as required by the provisions of paragraph 22 of Circular No. 639 (Rev.2), Series 6, of 31 August 2005.
    However, the Tribunal considers, without needing to rule on the applicability in the presence case of the aforementioned provisions, that this objection to receivability must be rejected since it has been established, from the content of the file, that the final decision of 29 July 2011 explicitly stated that the complainant could file an appeal with the Tribunal in accordance with its Statute and Rules. This statement must, in any event, be construed as an authorisation to appeal directly to the Tribunal without pursuing any other internal means of redress.

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 3356


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "[I]t should be recalled that the rules governing the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. In particular, the possibility of lodging a complaint against an implied rejection is governed solely by the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that an official may file a complaint “[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”. When an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent advisory appeal body, this step itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of these provisions, which forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681 or 3034)."

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal;



  • Judgment 3331


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Considering that the Internal Appeals Committee had not examined his appeal within a reasonable time, the complainant filed his complaint directly with the Tribunal.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[B]efore the complainant brought his case directly to the Tribunal, he had to inform the EPO of his continued interest in his internal appeal, thus putting it on notice that he wanted the process to proceed. The Tribunal will accept a complaint to be brought directly to it where the internal redress process is not exhausted if it appears that a complainant’s rights in the internal appeal process have been paralysed."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 3190


    114th Session, 2013
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract, failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[The complainant's] assertion that she did not file an appeal before the Centre’s ad hoc Appellate Body because it could not be considered to be independent and impartial must be rejected. It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgment 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein). The complaint is therefore irreceivable."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3132


    113th Session, 2012
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal held in Judgment 456, under 2, the purpose of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute is twofold. Firstly, it enables an official to defend his or her interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administrative has failed to take a decision. Secondly, it prevents a dispute from dragging on indefinitely and from coming before the Tribunal at a time when the material have altered or can no longer be determined with certainty. This would undermine the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. As pointed out in Judgment 2901, under 8, it follows from the twin purposes that, if the Administrative 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 his or her claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable. In the present case, the 150 days mentionned above expired at the latest in mid to late June 2008. The complainant did not receive any response to her claim within sixty days of her sending the letter of 12 January 2008; this is not in dispute. Therefore, she had a further ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal on the basis of an implied decision rejecting her grievances. In some cases, even a response received subsequently can be considered as nullifying and replacing the implied decision. However, neither letters from the Agency responding to the complainant can be considered as an administrative decision which would nullify and replace the implied decision rejecting her grievances outlined in her letter of 12 January 2008. It is clear that they did not contain any expression of will on the part of the Agency to allow the complainant to use the internal mechanisms she chose not to use at the time she left the service of the Agency. Instead, the first letter limited itself to informing her that she had far exceeded the time limit for bringing formal grievances against the Agency and the second letter merely stated that the information contained in the first letter was still valid. That being so, the 150-day time limit mentionned above has expired and the complaint must be considered irreceivable and therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 2901

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; time bar;



  • Judgment 3075


    112th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "An organisation has the duty to follow its own Rules, and to do its best to ensure the proper functioning of its internal appeal system. The application of time limits in the internal appeal procedure is a safeguard for a proper functioning of the system. The internal appeal procedure is indeed an important step in the remedying of disputes given that an appeal body's competence is broader than that of the Tribunal. Therefore, just as staff members have the duty to pursue their appeals with due diligence, an organisation has the duty to respect the time limits and cannot rely on staff members to monitor the procedures. The possibility of filing a complaint directly with the Tribunal is to be considered a further safeguard for a proper functioning of an internal appeal system and not a fast track for settling a dispute between the parties through a judgment from the Tribunal. Indeed, an internal appeal system which is not fully functional affects the right of defence."

    Keywords:

    delay in internal procedure; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 3034


    111th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [A]ttention must be drawn to the fact that the rules concerning the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. In particular, the possibility of lodging a complaint against an implied rejection is governed solely by the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that an official may file a complaint “[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”. When an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent advisory appeal body, this step itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of these provisions, which forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681). As it is not disputed that, in the instant case, the Agency had forwarded the complainants’ internal complaints to the Joint Committee for Disputes within this prescribed period of time, the persons concerned were wrong in believing that they could challenge the implied rejection of these complaints.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681

    Keywords:

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

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


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top