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

Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 437

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >

  • Judgment 4431


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a decision of the Administrative Council introducing new rules for employees of the European Patent Office concerning the right to strike.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; general decision; internal appeal; right to strike;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In concluding that the internal appeal was irreceivable, the Appeals Committee rejected any suggestion that CA/D 5/13 had an immediate and adverse effect on the complainant. However the gist of the complainant’s argument in relation to Article 65(1)(c) was that it had had such an effect and, at least quite clearly implicitly, on his (and his colleagues’) right to strike. The Tribunal, in its Judgment 3761, consideration 14, made clear that a general decision may, in certain circumstances, be impugned if it immediately and adversely affects individual rights. The complainant’s argument involved such a contention. The conclusion of the Appeals Committee that his appeal was manifestly irreceivable failed to consider this question and was thus legally flawed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; internal appeal; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 4429


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge a statement of the President of the European Patent Office alleging defamation.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority (see Judgment 3127, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3127

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4426


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to retroactively promote her while she was on sick leave.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Committee was not precluded from applying its summary procedure to the appeal as the same rationale that underlies applying the summary procedure where an internal appeal is lodged out of time (avoiding procedural futility) also underlies the rationale for applying the summary procedure where a request for review is lodged out of time.

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4408


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal points out that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision and, in particular, on all the organisation’s arguments (see Judgment 2598, consideration 6).
    In this case, the Tribunal notes that, while the members of the Appeal Board met with the acting Chief of the Human Resources Management Department on 21 July 2017, it was only so that they could understand the ITU’s recruitment procedure. The meeting was thus merely an investigative measure, the purpose of which was to enable the Board to obtain information on the recruitment of officials in general, and not an interview relating specifically to the competition procedure at issue. Therefore, contrary to what the complainant submits, it was not a hearing where she was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed. Consequently, the plea regarding a breach of the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure must be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4398


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her claim for a second payment of the lump sum paid in the event of death or permanent invalidity under Article 84(1)b) of the Service Regulations.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    It is noteworthy that in Judgment 2893, consideration 5, in reply to a complainant’s submissions that the internal appeal body did not afford him due process as he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, thereby denying him the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard, the Tribunal stated that neither the legal provisions governing that internal appeal body nor the general principles applicable to it require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. The Tribunal also noted that, as the internal appeal body considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties’ written submissions and documentary evidence, the internal appeal body was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect. Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case the Appeals Committee invited the complainant to present written submissions and she did. The complainant presents no ground that puts into question the impartiality of the members of the Appeals Committee or the lawfulness of the summary procedure.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2893

    Keywords:

    due process; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4397


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant asserts that the internal appeal procedure was procedurally flawed as the principle of equality of arms was not respected when the presiding member of the Appeals Committee chamber refused to postpone the hearing as a “purely arbitrary measure”. This assertion is unfounded. […] By letter of 18 May 2018, the Appeals Committee’s Secretariat informed the complainant’s attorney that the hearing was scheduled for 11 June 2018. On 22 May the complainant’s attorney requested to postpone the hearing due to the fact that she would be away on vacation […]. The presiding member of the chamber decided to maintain the hearing as it could not be postponed for other than compelling reasons. […] The finding that a vacation was not considered to be a compelling reason warranting postponement of the hearing, in the present case, cannot be considered unreasonable nor arbitrary.

    Keywords:

    equality of arms; internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4396


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4384


    131st Session, 2021
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [A]s part of its duty of care, the Organization has an obligation to maintain a properly functioning appeal system which adheres to the established rules and regulations (see, for example, Judgment 3027, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3027

    Keywords:

    duty of care; internal appeal; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 4369


    131st Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgments 2345, consideration 1(c), and 2713, consideration 3(d)). In the circumstances of the case, the Appeals Board, or otherwise the Organization itself, if they considered the notice of appeal premature, should have informed the complainant so as to enable her to correct that procedural error, if need be after the decision dismissing her protest was adopted. Neither the Appeals Board nor the Organization complied with that duty. It follows that, owing to the requirements inherent in the principle of good faith, the objection to receivability based on the premature lodging of the notice of appeal with the Appeals Board must be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 2713

    Keywords:

    duty of care; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4348


    131st Session, 2021
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the refusal to grant them costs incurred during the internal appeal proceedings.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; costs; internal appeal;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Rule 9 of the Board of Appeal’s Rules of Procedure provides that “[t]he [a]ppellant may [...] be represented by outside legal counsel, which shall be at the [a]ppellant’s own expense”. This provision is clear and allows no room for reimbursement of legal fees.

    Keywords:

    costs; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4347


    131st Session, 2021
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.

    Consideration 32

    Extract:

    The complainant claims that excessive delays throughout the various stages of the proceedings against him caused him injury and warrant an award of damages. Although the overall duration of the proceedings may appear lengthy, the Tribunal notes that they were complex and involved investigation into allegations against both the complainant and Mr N. and multiple stages of review by various authorities. Therefore, no award of damages is warranted on this basis.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal;

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    The complainant also submits that the decision is vitiated by an error of law, as the Board of Appeal was improperly composed and the appointment of a new Board of Appeal led to an egregious delay in the proceedings. The Tribunal finds that the composition of the Board of Appeal which reviewed his appeal was lawful and the delays in reconfiguring the Board of Appeal were not egregious. The length of the delay was principally determined by the complainant’s request to change the composition of the panel which was proposed to him on 26 May 2016. He requested the change as he objected to the proposal that the Board of Appeal members remain on the Board of Appeal beyond the expiry of their mandates, despite assurances that they had agreed to the extension of their appointments at the Organization’s request and with the knowledge and concurrence of the Staff Association. Therefore, the appeal was stayed, pending new elections for the Board of Appeal members nominated by the Staff Association. While it took a year to finalize the composition of the new panel, the Board of Appeal, once properly composed, rendered its preliminary report within three months and its final report within five months of receiving the Director’s 27 December 2017 decision. Moreover, the complainant has not provided convincing evidence of any negative effect on him caused by the delay in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; delay; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4313


    130th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, challenges the decision to dismiss her harassment grievance.

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    Several new features were introduced by the amendment of Article 13.4 of the Staff Regulations on the procedure to be followed in cases of harassment. While the introduction of the duty to conduct an independent investigation, unless the grievance is irreceivable or the Director of the Human Resources Development Department is satisfied that the facts have already been fully established, is indisputably in line with the Tribunal’s case law, the same cannot be said of the exclusion by the new Article 13.4(18) of the Staff Regulations of the right to file an internal appeal against the decision of the Director-General with the Joint Advisory Appeals Board.
    First of all, as the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, it is desirable that an official should have the opportunity to lodge an internal appeal against a decision concerning her or him (see Judgments 3732, under 2, and 4257, under 12). The right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority (see, for example, Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3067, under 20). This is especially true since in most matters, internal appeal bodies may normally allow an appeal on grounds of fairness or advisability, whereas the Tribunal must essentially give a ruling on points of law (see Judgment 3732, under 2).
    Next, the existence of an internal appeal procedure allows the organisation, if need be, to remedy an omission or rectify an error and, if necessary, to alter its position before a final decision is taken. Moreover, it allows the staff member concerned to understand the final decision better and perhaps accept that decision as being warranted in the light of the findings of the internal appeal body, even if the outcome is unfavourable to her, thus dissuading her from filing a complaint with the Tribunal.
    Finally, internal appeal procedures play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from the composition of the appeal bodies and their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation. One of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately filed, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see Judgments 3424, under 11(b), 4072, under 1, and 4168, under 2). In this case, it appears to the Tribunal that the input of an internal appeal body would have been particularly essential given that a large number of facts have to be taken into consideration.
    In conclusion, the Tribunal deeply regrets that it is no longer possible to bring an internal appeal against a harassment-related decision before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board, even though it is normally the rule at the ILO for such an appeal to be available.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067, 3424, 3732, 4072, 4168, 4257

    Keywords:

    harassment; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4257


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The second [argument] is that the grievance cannot be further pursued by way of internal appeal. As to this second point, the Tribunal has repeatedly spoken of the desirability of effective internal appeal mechanisms (see Judgment 3732, consideration 2, and the cases cited therein). However the Tribunal has not said it is mandatory and a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in relation to final decisions that all such decisions are subject to internal appeal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3732

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4237


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision – taken after his resignation – to find him guilty of serious misconduct, and the decision to withhold from his separation entitlements an amount corresponding to financial losses allegedly incurred by WHO as a result of his misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    Taking into account all of the circumstances, including the factual and legal complexity of the proceedings, the number of steps in the process (the IOS investigation, the two appeals before the RBA and the appeal before the GBA), the total length of the procedure was not unreasonable. The claim for moral damages for excessive delay is rejected.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal; moral injury;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    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).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3593, 3682, 3757, 3757, 4024, 4026, 4091

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; internal appeal; investigation;



  • 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 4196


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject as time-barred his application for an inward transfer into the EPO’s pension scheme of pension rights previously accrued under a German pension scheme.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal appeal; transfer of pension rights;



  • Judgment 4184


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant mainly challenges the alleged misuse of short-term contracts in her case, the non-extension of her last contract and the allegedly incorrect classification of her job.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal, in Judgment 3704, in considerations 2 and 3, recalled that the time limits for internal appeal procedures and the time limits in the Tribunal’s Statute serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time. The Tribunal’s rationalisation of this general principle may be summarized as follows: time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations. However, there are exceptions to this general principle laid down in the Tribunal’s case law. One of them is the case where the defendant organisation misled the complainant, depriving him of the possibility of exercising his right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see, for example, Judgment 2722, consideration 3, and Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6). The Tribunal also recalls that a complaint against an implied rejection may be deemed receivable, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for filing a complaint, if a particular step taken by an organisation, such as sending a dilatory reply to the complainant, might give that person good reason to infer that his or her claim is still under consideration (see Judgment 2901, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2722, 2901, 3311, 3704

    Keywords:

    implied rejection of internal appeal; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; late appeal;



  • Judgment 4173


    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 assign her to another duty station.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    As stated in Judgment 3531, consideration 4, the Tribunal has “consistently held that international organisations have a duty to ensure that internal appeals are conducted with due diligence and with due regard to the duty of care owed to staff members (see, in particular, Judgment 2522)”. It is recognized that the time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the specific circumstances of a given case. At the same time, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3688, consideration 6, citing Judgment 2904, consideration 15:
    “According to well-established case law, ‘[s]ince compliance with internal appeals procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed’ (see Judgment 2197, under 33).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197, 2522, 2904, 3531, 3688

    Keywords:

    duty of care; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4171


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss her internal complaints of moral harassment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal will rely on the findings of the Appeals Board and, since no manifest error is apparent, will take for established the facts as the Board ascertained them. As the Tribunal has stated in its case law, an internal appeals body plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the investigative powers granted to it. It gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary in order to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof (see, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3424, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3424

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review;



  • Judgment 4168


    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation of his salary after he was promoted.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers it regrettable that the complainant’s internal complaint was not examined. Firstly, since Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal does not permit the filing of a complaint before the Tribunal unless the complainant has exhausted internal means of redress, officials are entitled to expect that the organisation which employs them will deal with their appeals without requiring them to file a complaint with the Tribunal in order to assert their claims. Secondly, as the Tribunal has often recalled, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of an internal appeal procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately filed, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies. Appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition and their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation (see Judgments 4072, under 1, and 3424, under 11(b)). In this case, it appears to the Tribunal that the input of an internal appeal body would have been particularly helpful given the highly technical nature of the case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3424, 4072

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >


 
Last updated: 21.10.2021 ^ top