Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 455
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | next >
Judgment 2255
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
"The organization did not contest the receivability of the appeals to the appeals board and does not now contest that the complaints were timely filed in accordance with the Tribunal's Statute. Notwithstanding these facts, however, UNESCO now argues that the internal appeals to the Appeals Board were irreceivable and that accordingly, the complaints to the Tribunal are also irreceivable. [...] In Judgment 522, the Tribunal was faced with the identical situation and held: "There can be no doubt that the appropriate, if not the only, time to take the point was before the Appeals Board, since it is the proceedings before the Board that are said to be out of time [...] and not the proceedings before the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal has therefore now to consider whether or not justice requires that the organization should be given a second opportunity to take the point. Three factors ought to be considered. The first is whether the point is a clear and compelling one. The second is whether there is an adequate explanation of the organization's failure to take it. The third is whether the complainant may be prejudiced by the organizations's failure.' " The Tribunal applies, in the present case, the criteria set out in Judgment 552.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 522
Keywords:
case law; complaint; date; injury; internal appeal; new plea; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Although the disputed decision is regulatory in character, it applies generally to a category of staff members whom it may adversely affect. The case law has it (see Judgments 1451 and 1618) that in such a case there is no need to await an individual decision before an appeal can be considered receivable, and that the staff members concerned have an interest in challenging the lawfulness of the general decision which may affect them. Their complaints are therefore receivable ratione personae."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618
Keywords:
case law; complainant; complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2236
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The right to intervene in a complaint filed before the Tribunal is available to persons who wish to claim the benefit of the judgment rendered on that complaint, without having themselves exhausted the remedies available to them. since the intervener has availed himself of the internal remedies and filed a complaint before the Tribunal on which judgment is delivered this day, his application to intervene is, therefore, irreceivable."
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; effect; intention of parties; internal appeal; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; right; status of complainant;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability because the matter was not referred to the Appeals Council. "In the present case, that procedure was not and clearly could not have been followed. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the Director-General, stripped of his functions, could have appealed to the Appeals Council established under his own authority, against a decision of the Conference of the States parties, with a view to obtaining a final decision by the new Director-General. [...] An appeal to the Appeals Council was inconceivable, and the impugned decision was clearly a final decision - within the meaning of Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute [...] in that situation, a direct appeal to the Tribunal [...] was clearly the only remedy available to the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; competence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; member state; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment;
Judgment 2223
95th Session, 2003
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The fact that the Director-General [did not initiate] the appeal procedure invalidates the defendant's argument that internal remedies were not exhausted, although they should have been as required by article vii of the Tribunal's Statute. While it is regrettable that the case was never brought before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board, this does not prevent the Tribunal from ruling on the merits of the complaint, which has been filed within the applicable rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; consequence; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2218
95th Session, 2003
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Organization argues that the complainant submitted new "conclusions" to the Tribunal, compared to those he had put forward in his internal appeal [...]. In fact, the complainant's pleas, whether in the internal appeal or before the Tribunal, consist in challenging the decision taken regarding his grade and in obtaining a position in the normal salary scale at the level closest to the salary he had been receiving in the previous system. His request to be placed at a graded level within the new scale instead of one altogether outside the scale cannot properly be considered as going beyond the claims he had submitted in the internal appeals proceedings".
Keywords:
claim; complainant; complaint; decision; identical claims; iloat; internal appeal; interpretation; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; salary; scale;
Judgment 2216
95th Session, 2003
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Article VI 1.01 of ESO's International Staff Rules reads as follows: " 'Every member of the personnel shall have the right to appeal against any decision of the Director General concerning himself.' Thus, a person who is not a "member of the personnel" has no right to launch an internal appeal and his or her only recourse is directly to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VI 1.01 OF ESO'S INTERNATIONAL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; general principle; internal appeal; official; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2197
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 33
Extract:
"Since compliance with internal appeal 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. Here, while the [Joint Appeals] Board, once the meetings had started, came to its conclusion fairly quickly, there can be no valid excuse to justify the delay of over twenty months between the filing of the internal appeal and the start of the hearings. No doubt some of this was due to the complainant herself and the long convoluted and complicated nature of her pleadings, which frequently contradict themselves, but [the organization] cannot escape responsibility for the inordinate amount of time taken." The Tribunal awards 3 000 euros in damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2196
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal "notes [...] that even after the filing of the complaints, it took the organisation more than a year to bring the internal appeal procedure to a conclusion. By any standards, that is an unacceptable delay. The organisation's plea that it is overwhelmed by a heavy volume and a backlog of internal appeals may be a reason, but it is not an excuse. Incompetence or a lack of resources can never justify depriving employees of their right to a speedy and just resolution of their grievances."
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2190
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's claim that the Tribunal should order the organization to undertake disciplinary investigations into the actions of [...] the staff member who allegedly entered a 'frivolous and dilatory' plea of irreceivability before the [Headquarters] Board [of Appeal], clearly cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, which has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against international organisations, let alone to cast judgment on the means of defence used on behalf of such organisations in the context of internal appeal proceedings or litigation."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; internal appeal; internal appeals body; investigation; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; right to reply;
Judgment 2181
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant seeks the validation of her service, for pension purposes, of the period between 13 September 1978 and 14 November 1979. What emerges from Article 23 of the UNJSPF Regulations is that "staff members whose terms of appointment expressly excluded participation in the UNJSPF during the period of service preceding their participation cannot subsequently request the validation of that period of service. that was the case with the complainant [...] she could [...] have made use, at the time [...] of the appeal mechanisms established by the [organisation], to obtain a modification of the terms of her contracts, or to challenge the legality of [the] rule [which provided that staff members engaged under short-term contracts could not participate in the unjspf]. However, since she failed to do so in due time, she is hardly in a position to seek the annulment of her appointments of 1978 and 1979 more than 20 years later. Besides, the nature of those appointments can no longer be challenged. The argument that the complainant did not use the available means of appeal for fear of harming her career cannot be accepted. Moreover, her request for validation of service, which was submitted on 22 December 1999, must be considered to be time-barred."
Keywords:
contract; contributory service; fund membership; internal appeal; late appeal; participation excluded; receivability of the complaint; short-term; terms of appointment; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2180
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The allegation that the reasons for the complainant's non-inclusion on the short list were not fully explained to her when she first asked for the reasons [...] becomes irrelevant in light of the undoubted fact that such reasons were fully and adequately given during the internal appeal procedure."
Keywords:
appointment; failure to answer claim; grounds; internal appeal; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2170
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Organisation decided to withhold the complainant's salary increment. It failed to respond either to her initial request for review of the decision or to her subsequent appeal to the appeal board. "Since she succeeds in part, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which are aggravated by the [Organisation's] wholly unacceptable treatment of her internal appeal."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; delay; failure to answer claim; injury; internal appeal; moral injury;
Judgment 2139
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The right of international officials to resort to all internal and jurisdictional remedies available to them without detriment to their career is an essential guarantee to which the Tribunal attaches the greatest importance."
Keywords:
career; consequence; iloat; internal appeal; judicial review; official; right; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A staff member who files an appeal is entitled to expect a decision to be taken within a reasonable time. Since an internal appeal is a necessary prelude to judicial review, the organization too must respect the need for expeditious proceedings. In this case more than two-and-a-half years elapsed between the complainant's appeal to the Appeals Committee and the Director-General's decision to reject it. Circumstances and the nature of the case demanded an expeditious appeal procedure. Since, in the internal appeal, the complainant was challenging a decision not to keep her on and claiming reinstatement, she needed to know quickly what the outcome of the appeal would be. Indeed, her future to some extent depended on it. Though it raised some delicate issues, the case was not particularly complex. The conclusion is that the appeal was not sufficiently expeditious. The amount of time usually needed to deal with such a case was far exceeded. As a result the complainant suffered injury warranting redress."
Keywords:
contract; delay; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; material damages; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."
Keywords:
case law; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2039
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where 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, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2031
90th Session, 2001
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"A delay in the internal appeal process could never allow a complainant to succeed on the merits; at most it might entitle him or her to appeal directly to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | next >
|
