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 1232
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was sentenced to imprisonment in his country of origin. After his release, however, he was not allowed to go abroad. after being entitled to do so, he sent a letter to the Director-General regarding the organization's acceptance of his application for early retirement, which he had worded under duress, when he was still compelled to remain in his country. Receiving no answer and about one year after leaving the country, he challenged the rejection he inferred from the Director-General's silence. The complainant went to the Appeals Board, but the Director-General rejected its recommendation on the grounds that the appeal was irreceivable, being out of time. The Tribunal considers that "the delay was understandable in the unusual circumstances of [the] case [...] the conclusion is that he was not out of time."
Keywords:
delay; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 1230
74th Session, 1993
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The defendant maintains that the complainant did not meet the two-month time limit for lodging appeals and failed to exhaust the internal means of redress. The Committee was of the view that, in this case, exceptional circumstances warranted waiving the time limit and allowing the appeal. The defendant contends that the Committee's decision was not binding on the Agency. "Only where the Committee's appraisal of the circumstances is flagrantly wrong or based on plainly mistaken facts may the Director General disregard it, and even then his decision will be subject to review by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
condition; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The rule is that for his complaint to be receivable the staff member must not only meet the time limit in Article VII(2) of [the Tribunal's] Statute but have properly followed the internal appeal procedure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
condition; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1205
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complaint is irreceivable because the decision impugned is not a final one: the complainant has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress, in breach of the requirement in Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1192
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainants object to the delay in handling their case throughout, from the lodging of their appeals with the Regional Boards of Appeal until the case reached the Director-General. The Tribunal holds that the time the proceedings took, though long, did not amount to any wilful disregard of the complainants' rights but was accounted for by the large number of appeals and the complexity of the issues."
Keywords:
administrative delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1190
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Under WHO Staff Rule 1230.4 an official who has appealed to the Appeals Board is entitled to challenge two of its members. One of the complainants exercised that right but had his challenge rejected. There was therefore a serious flaw in the internal appeal procedure. The material issue is whether the Director-General was entitled to treat the Board's report as being in line with the material rules. The report itself discloses that the rights of one of the complainants had been ignored. The Tribunal holds that "the Director-General has a duty to enforce the rules. He knew of the breach and should have rejected the report insofar as it concerned [the complainant] who objected to it as not being in accordance with those rules: he was not entitled to proceed as if no breach had occurred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1230.4
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; due process; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; recusal; report; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1188
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
After the Director-General imposed a disciplinary sanction on the complainant he lodged an internal appeal. Rule 110.4.3 of the Staff Rules says that "the deliberations and reports of the Disciplinary Committee and its recommendations to the Director- General shall be confidential". The material issue is "whether the full text of the Disciplinary Committee's report, and not just the text of its recommendation, was disclosed to the Joint Appeals Committee. If it was, the Union should have let the complainant too have a copy and, failing that, there was a procedural flaw in that there was breach of his right of defence."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 110.4.3
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; interlocutory order; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; report; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"An item that formed part of the internal appeal proceedings should be at the Tribunal's disposal since it cannot otherwise appraise the background to the impugned decision and determine whether it shows any flaw. Further submissions are therefore required to complete the case records."
Keywords:
decision; disclosure of evidence; flaw; further submissions; interlocutory order; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; report;
Judgment 1181
73rd Session, 1992
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complaint raises a question of receivability. Under Article 43 (1) of the Staff Regulations an internal appeal must be lodged within thirty days of the date on which a decision was notified. The complainant pleads that he made a material mistake by reading the thirty days as one calendar month. "Time limits for internal appeals must be strictly complied with. The complainant failed to abide by the Staff Regulations, and the mistake he supposedly made is irrelevant because the organization did not seek to mislead him. Since he has not exhausted the internal means of redress, his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 43 OF THE INTERPOL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; delay; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1172
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The conclusion is that in substance [the complainant's] letter [...] amounted to a request for further information and explanation on a matter the parties had been discussing for years. If his intention was to lodge an appeal under Chapter VI of the Staff Rules he ought to have used language more in keeping with that of an appeal. In any event, on receiving CERN's reply [...] he ought to have applied for referral to the Appeals Board, which [...] is not just a formality. Had he applied for such referral the ambiguous wording of his letter might have been treated as just an oversight, and had the organization turned down his claims it might have been held that he had exhausted the internal means of redress as Article VII(1) the Tribunal's Statute required him to do."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: CHAPTER VI OF THE CERN STAFF RULES
Keywords:
condition; formal requirements; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1167
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"All that is needed for [an] appeal to be receivable is that the impugned decision be clearly identified and the pleas set out.
Keywords:
condition; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1160
72nd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"Further claims [from one of the complainants] to a ruling on the Organization's alleged failure to deal with the issues in his statements of appeal and to 'directions' to the administration 'in the interest of justice' do not constitute proper forms of relief and therefore will not be entertained."
Keywords:
claim; compensation; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1132
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that time limits in rules on internal appeals must be strictly adhered to. The complainant did not comply with the requirements of the Service Regulations. Nor can he show any breach of good faith on the organisation's part. His complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
exception; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1117
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The complainants took the view that according to the principle of equal treatment embodied in the Staff Regulations, they were entitled not only to arrears of pay but also to interest thereon. They were free to conclude that the competent authority had, to quote Article 92(2), 'failed to adopt a measure prescribed by the Staff Regulations' and that they therefore had the right to appeal directly to the Tribunal against the refusal of their claims." The conclusion is that without submitting a 92(1) claim to the Director General they did exhaust the internal means of redress.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92(1) AND (2) OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"According to Article 92 of the Staff Regulations the gist of the internal appeal procedure is that before lodging an internal complaint the staff member shall submit his grievances or claims to the administration to enable it to take a decision. That is what the complainants did since Eurocontrol had the opportunity of stating its position." The organisation's objections to receivability on the grounds that the complainants did not exhaust the internal means of redress by putting their claims to the Director General as provided by Article 92(1) fails.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92(1) OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1109
71st Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"By the date of filing [his first complaint], 15 March 1990, the complainant had lodged with the organisation one request for review under Article 13.1 of the Staff Regulations and another under Paragraph 15 of Circular 334 [on personal promotion]. Only afterwards, on 2 April, did he file an internal 'complaint' under Article 13.2. So he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires him to do." The first complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 13.1 AND 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS; ILO CIRCULAR 334 (SERIES 6) OF 20 JULY 1985
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1082
70th Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 873 (in re Da) the CIPEC Staff Regulations do not provide for internal appeal. But that does not preclude the organisation's entertaining such an appeal ex gratia."The complainant addressed an appeal to the decision- making authority" before the expiry of ninety days from the date of the original decision and the Secretary-General's answer was to uphold that decision. So it is fair to take the ninety days as running from the date of confirmation and treat the complaint as filed in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 873
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; no provision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1068
70th Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4, Summary
Extract:
The complainant received a termination indemnity under Article 11.6 of the ILO Staff Regulations (indemnity upon reduction of staff). She claims a more generous one under Article 11.16 (agreed termination). The indemnity under dispute was mentioned in an agreement signed in 1977, which the Tribunal recognised as valid in Judgment 404 of 24 April 1980. Besides, her entitlements were paid in full on 24 January 1979. Her claim of 20 December 1988 is therefore time- barred under Article 14.8 and also irreceivable under the res judicata rule.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 11.6 AND 11.16 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
agreed termination; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; terminal entitlements; time bar;
Consideration 3, Summary
Extract:
By a letter of 20 December 1988 the complainant asked the Director-General to pay her three months' salary based on an offer made to her on 23 October 1981. Her claim was nowhere near being in time according to the time limit set in Article 14.8 of the Staff Regulations. The organisation's failure to pay her has no effect on the time limit.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 14.8 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 1039
69th Session, 1990
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant lodged two internal appeals against the decision not to renew her appointment. Her first appeal, which she submitted directly to the Board, was irreceivable because under paragraph 7(a) she ought first to have addressed her claim to the Director-General. The second appeal, which she did address to the Director-General, was out of time by one day. There having been no waiver of the time limit under paragraph 8 of the Statutes, her complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHS 7(A) AND 8 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNESCO APPEALS BOARD
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1026
69th Session, 1990
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated upon the abolition of his post. The organization offered him 5000 United States dollars in compensation for the delay in dealing with the case. The Tribunal holds that this "does not measure up to the degree of moral and material injury [the organization] has caused the complainant, whose health has grown much worse since termination. The Tribunal believes that more reasonable awards would be $8,000 in damages and $2,000 towards costs."
Keywords:
abolition of post; administrative delay; amount; costs; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; terminal entitlements; termination of employment;
Judgment 1019
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Though a complainant may not submit to the Tribunal any claim which he did not make in the internal proceedings a new plea is another matter."
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1011
68th Session, 1990
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final one and such remedies as are available under the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. To satisfy that requirement, which is mandatory, the staff member must duly lodge an internal appeal with the competent body within the time limit in the Staff Regulations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
formal requirements; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Summary
Extract:
To take account of shifts in currency rates when reckoning the pay of officials who changed categories on promotion, the ITU began to follow United Nations practice by adopting in 1988 the so-called "anniversary calculation" system. The complainant, who was promoted in 1985 from grade G.7 to P.2, is seeking to have her pay so reviewed. On 28 January 1986 she wrote to the chief of personnel objecting to the loss of salary she suffered as a result of promotion. On 26 May 1988 she appealed to the Appeal Board. The Tribunal holds that the memorandum of 28 January 1986 cannot be construed either in form or in substance as a request for review under Rule 11.1.2 but was merely a written claim under Rule 3.17.1. Her appeal of 26 May 1988 was patently out of time and the complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: RULES 3.17.1 AND 11.1.1.2 OF THE ITU STAFF REGULATIONS AND STAFF RULES
Keywords:
consequence; formal requirements; general service category; internal appeal; professional category; promotion; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar;
Judgment 1010
68th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant appealed against the decision to dismiss him after the expiry of the time-limit. He maintains that "he was never told of the time limits in the rules. Though that plea might succeed in exceptional cases, it cannot in this one, since the complainant was given a copy of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules on conclusion of the contract of appointment."
Keywords:
duty to inform; internal appeal; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's internal appeal against termination after the extension of his probation is time-barred. He argues "that an unregistered letter from someone other than the Director-General cannot constitute proper notice of dismissal or of extension of probation. [The] plea fails [...]. Provided that the staff member is given official notice of a decision the time limit starts to run and there is no need for special procedural formalities. And the absence of the Director-General's signature can have no effect on the time limit for appeal even though it may in some circumstances warrant setting the decision aside."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
< 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 >
|
