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: 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 3936


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who held the grade P-5 post of Head of UNESCO’s National Office in Kinshasa, challenges the decision to transfer her to Paris.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable staff regulations. In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, to satisfy this requirement a complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal but must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure (see, for example, Judgment 3296, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal observes that at the time when she submitted her protest, and indeed when she received a reply to it, the complainant, who was initially assigned to Kinshasa, was on maternity leave. Thus she had not actually taken up her duties as chargée de mission in the Bureau of Field Coordination, to which she had theoretically been assigned from 1 March 2013, and could not in any event be regarded as “stationed” at Headquarters for the purposes of paragraph 7(c) of the Statutes of the Appeals Board.
    It follows that the Director-General wrongly dismissed the complainant’s appeal as time-barred, since it was submitted within the two-month period running from her receipt of the memorandum of 1 March 2013.

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; late appeal;



  • Judgment 3934


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Although the complaint of moral harassment which the complainant had filed against the Director of the Office was the subject of separate proceedings, in his appeal against the decision not to extend his appointment the complainant also alleged that that decision stemmed from a wish to discriminate and retaliate against him which itself formed part of the harassment. [...] [I]n its opinion of 11 July 2014 the Appeals Board noted, before recommending that his appeal be dismissed, that “[t]he allegations on discrimination, harassment and punitiveness [were] the subject matters of another appeal and they [would] be decided on in [another] case brought before the Appeals Board” by the complainant.
    In adopting that approach, the Appeals Board committed an error of law. If those allegations had proved to be well founded, they would have substantiated the existence of flaws rendering the contested decision unlawful; hence the Appeals Board could not properly recommend that the aforementioned decision be confirmed without first having determined whether they were valid.

    Keywords:

    harassment; internal appeal; mistake of law; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 3933


    125th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    As to delay in the internal appeals process, the Tribunal notes that the internal appeal to the Appeals Committee was lodged on 23 June 2014. The Committee, it appears, did not meet to consider the case until 14 October 2015 and reported on 19 February 2016 resulting in a decision of the Director-General on 9 May 2016. This delay is excessive (though the time taken for the initial appeal to the Director-General is not) and no explanation or answer is provided by the FAO in its reply. Indeed it makes no submissions on this question at all. The complainant is entitled to moral damages for this delay.

    Keywords:

    delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3929


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organisation has a duty of care which, in relation to the exercise of the right of appeal, obliges the organisation to assist a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of that right. If the staff member has mistakenly requested a review of a decision to the wrong authority, that authority must forward the request to the appropriate one (see Judgments 3754, under 11, and 2345, under 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 3754

    Keywords:

    duty of care; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3928


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organisation has a duty of care which, in relation to the exercise of the right of appeal, obliges the organisation to assist a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of that right. If the staff member has mistakenly requested a review of a decision to the wrong authority, that authority must forward the request to the appropriate one (see Judgments 3754, under 11, and 2345, under 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 3754

    Keywords:

    duty of care; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3923


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Chair of the Appeal Board to dismiss as time-barred his internal appeal against the non-confirmation of his appointment and his separation while on sick leave.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3906


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her fixed-term appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3905


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3903


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was irreceivable (see Judgment 3758, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 3849


    124th Session, 2017
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal emphasises that it is desirable that an organisation make it absolutely clear in a communication that it constitutes notice that the contract will not be renewed and language to this effect should be used. Also, it is desirable for the organisation to say in such a communication that it manifests a final decision against which the official can appeal in a manner prescribed in the organisation’s rules and regulations.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; notification;



  • Judgment 3846


    124th Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant objects to the working conditions to which she was subjected during a secondment and contends that the ITU breached the rules on performance appraisals.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal is of the opinion that, as the [organisation] itself recognises, the events to which the Appeal Board referred do not constitute “extraneous, unforeseeable and compelling factors”. The defendant organisation may not therefore rely on force majeure to justify a failure to comply with the time limit for the submission of the Board’s report. In this case, however, this flaw had no practical implications and hence does not warrant an award of damages.

    Keywords:

    force majeure; internal appeal; moral injury;



  • Judgment 3845


    124th Session, 2017
    African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The way in which the internal means of redress are organised in the Staff Regulations and its annexes is rather unclear. Since the decision [...] did not specify what remedies were available to challenge it, it is understandable in any event that, even with a lawyer’s assistance, the complainant was hesitant to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal without first submitting the appeal to the Chairperson of the Committee of Ambassadors provided for in Annex VIII, paragraph 3, of the Staff Regulations.
    In the Tribunal’s view, it is hence justified to apply the firm precedent that while rules of procedure should be strictly complied with, they must not set traps for staff members who are trying to defend their rights and must not be construed with too much formalism, thus allowing the authority to avoid, unlawfully, addressing the merits of the case (see Judgments 1832, under 6, 2882, under 6, 3407, under 19, 3423, under 9(b), and 3759, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3407, 3423, 3759

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3831


    124th Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    Without more, a 25-month delay in the investigation of a harassment complaint is inordinate. However, it is also observed that the claim in the instant case was factually complex. It involved allegations against several individuals requiring a detailed examination of multiple alleged incidents spanning over a long period of time. It also involved a consideration by the [organisation] of voluminous documentation and multiple updates to the allegations. In addition, there were difficulties securing the availability of witnesses. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the delay was unreasonable.

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3829


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, for a letter addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein her or his intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting her or him and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgment 3068, under 16, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3068

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may not have discovered the irregularity on which she or he purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3663, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
    It is true that the Tribunal’s case law, as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 3406 for example, allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation, by deliberately misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from her or him, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406, 3663

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;



  • Judgment 3828


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme and the non-renewal of her contract.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, for a letter addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein her or his intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting her or him and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgment 3068, under 16, and the case law cited therein).
    Since the complainant clearly expressed her intention to challenge her status as defined in the decision of 5 April 2012, which adversely affected her and which formed the subject of that complaint, the letter of 7 June 2013 must be regarded as an appeal within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law and as a complaint within the meaning of Article 91, paragraph 2, of the General Conditions of Employment. Eurocontrol was therefore right to treat it as such.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3068

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may not have discovered the irregularity on which she or he purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3663, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
    It is true that the Tribunal’s case law, as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 3406 for example, allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation, by deliberately misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from her or him, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406, 3663

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;



  • Judgment 3759


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment following the abolition of her position.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he impugned decision rests on an excessively formalistic approach in that it attaches more importance to the statement of intention to appeal, which was plainly clumsily drafted, than to the content of the subsequent full statement, and pays no heed to the particular circumstances of the case.
    It must be recalled that, according to the case law, although rules of procedure should ordinarily be strictly complied with, they must not set traps for staff members who are trying to defend their rights (see Judgments 3592, under 3, 3424, under 8(d), 3423, under 9(d), and 3407, under 19). They must not therefore be construed with too much formalism, which is the case when an authority wrongly applies a rule of form and thus avoids addressing the merits, which is tantamount to refusing to take a decision.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3407, 3423, 3424, 3592

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3749


    123rd Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of additional income tax paid by her husband.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations. In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, to satisfy this requirement the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal but must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure (see, for example, Judgment 3296, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3742


    123rd Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the direct appointment of Ms S. to the position of Director, Office of Support to Decentralization.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    [T]he Appeals Committee did not provide that information to the complainant, in breach of its duty of procedural fairness. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must as a general rule have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” (see Judgment 3264, under 15). The complainant will be awarded moral damages [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3264

    Keywords:

    due process; internal appeal; moral injury;



  • Judgment 3733


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision dismissing his two internal appeals on health-related claims.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    This conclusion is not intended to suggest that an official needs to articulate a claim with the precision that might be expected of a competent lawyer. But something needs to be said by the official which, viewed reasonably, would result in the Administration understanding the true character of the claim and giving it the opportunity to respond appropriately.

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3693


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the EPO’s implied rejection of his internal appeals against the decision not to grant him the expatriation allowance retroactively and the decision to cease paying him the allowance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    allowance; complaint allowed; decision quashed; 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 >


 
Last updated: 12.04.2024 ^ top