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 3686
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.
Consideration 22
Extract:
[T]he case law is clear that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas before the Tribunal even if those
pleas were not placed before the relevant internal appeal body (see Judgment 2571, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571
Keywords:
internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3683
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his temporary appointment beyond its expiry date.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3674
122nd Session, 2016
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 5
Extract:
By informing the complainant [...] that he could not file an appeal with the Administrative Committee under [...] Article 58, OTIF therefore misled him as to his right to avail himself of the means of redress that were open to him under the Staff Regulations.
Keywords:
duty of care; internal appeal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It should be recalled that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long stated, 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. This principle implies that whenever a complainant has been unduly denied the right an effective internal appeal, the Tribunal should ordinarily remit the case to the organisation rather than examine its merits, especially as the review of a disputed decision by the competent body may well suffice to resolve a dispute.
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 3647
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that time limits for filing an internal appeal are not binding on a staff member where, for example, the organisation has misled the staff member, concealed some paper from her or him or has otherwise deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see, for example, Judgments 1466, under 5, 2722, under 3, or 3231, under 2). This case law is particularly relevant where a staff member has been misled as to whether she or he has any interest in challenging a decision (see Judgment 2993, under 8), which is exactly what occurred in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 2993, 3231
Keywords:
internal appeal; time bar;
Judgment 3640
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t must be emphasised that by no means will a mistake in the opinion of a joint appeal body necessarily render unlawful the administrative decision taken in the light of that opinion.
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeal;
Judgment 3618
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was a member of the Internal Appeals Committee nominated by the Staff Committee, challenges a provision of the implementing rules adopted in the context of a reform of the EPO internal dispute-resolution system.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal appeal; internal procedure;
Judgment 3614
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to allow her to benefit from the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
"The fundamental rationale for enabling an official to rely on payslips as establishing a cause of action is to provide a mechanism whereby a particular decision underpinning the payment or non-payment of a benefit can be challenged and often in circumstances where the official might have no standing to otherwise challenge that decision. A common example arises when an official challenges, by reference to a payslip, the lawfulness of a decision of the defendant organization’s governing body which has, when implemented, an adverse effect on the official.
In contrast, the rationale for time limits is to ensure that, while an aggrieved official has an opportunity to challenge decisions that adversely impact on her or him, the time frame within which such a challenge can be made is not open ended. The reason for limiting the time frame is to ensure that legal certainty is created, in due course, between both an individual staff member and staff more generally and the organisation employing them. Certainty, in this context, can be of particular significance to an organisation in relation to, amongst other things, budgeting and staffing. The time limit is intended to create a fair balance between the interests of officials and the interests of international organisations employing them."
Keywords:
internal appeal; payslip;
Judgment 3592
121st Session, 2016
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose letter of resignation has not been formally accepted, challenges the decision of the Executive Director of the IOOC requiring him, inter alia, to vacate his office.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[C]onsistent precedent has it that, although rules of procedure should ordinarily be strictly complied with, they must not set traps for staff members who are defending their rights and therefore they must not be construed with too much formalism. Consequently, an appeal submitted to the wrong authority is not irreceivable on that account and it is for that authority, in such circumstances, to forward it to the one which is competent, within the organisation, to hear it (see, for example, Judgments 1832, under 6, 2882, under 6, 3027, under 7, and 3423, under 9(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3027, 3423
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 3582
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment following the abolition of her position.
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of damages awarded for the injury caused by an unreasonable delay in processing an internal appeal depends on the length of the delay and its consequences (see Judgment 3530, under 5).
Whatever the extent of the delay, its consequences naturally vary depending on the subject matter of the dispute. A delay in resolving a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant will ordinarily be less injurious than a delay in resolving a matter which has a severe impact (see Judgment 3160, under 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 3530
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; moral injury;
Judgment 3531
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3530
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the EPO’s refusal to award them moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; joinder; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3528
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3527
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3507
120th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the payment of various sums in consequence of the decision to grant her a permanent disability benefit.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"If the official to whom the dispute was referred did not have the authority to rule on the grievance submitted to her, pursuant to the case law of the Tribunal she ought to have forwarded it to the authority which was competent within the organisation to hear it, and no objection to the receivability of the complaint can be raised on this basis (see, for example, Judgments 1832, under 6, 2882, under 6, 3027, under 7, or 3424, under 8(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3027, 3424
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 3505
120th Session, 2015
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her sick leave entitlement beyond the date on which her appointment expired.
Consideration 4
Extract:
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, for example, that former staff members could not avail themselves of the internal means of redress to challenge a decision taken after they had left the Organization (see Judgment 2944, under 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944
Keywords:
former official; internal appeal;
Judgment 3503
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the lawfulness of the appointment of two staff members to grade G-6 posts.
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that, for a letter addressed to an organization to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein his or her intention to contest the decision adversely affecting her or him and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgments 3068, under 16, and 3127, under 8, and the case law cited therein).
Whileit is true that the applicable provisions in this case required that the request for review be substantited, the complainant, who clearly indicated the grounds for her challenge, did in fact meet that obligation.
The foregoing considerations lead the Tribunal to find that the impugned decision was unlawful and to note that the complainant has, in this case, been unlawfully denied the benefit of her right to an internal appeal, a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority (on this point, see for example Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3068, under 20).
The Tribunal will therefore remit the case to WIPO in order that the Director General take a decision on the merits of the complainant's request for review pursuant to Staff Rule 11.1.1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3068, 3068, 3127
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal;
Judgment 3497
120th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the refusal of her request that her mother’s condition be recognized as a serious illness.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, 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 2781, under 15). If the ultimate decision-maker rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons (see Judgments 2278, 2355, 2699, 2807 and 3042). The value of the safeguard is significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority can reject conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without explaining why. If adequate reasons are not required, then room emerges for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decisions. (See Judgment 3208, under 11.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042, 3208
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal procedure; motivation;
Judgment 3490
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; delay; disclosure of evidence; internal appeal; post classification;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"With regard to the claims against the JAAB’s analysis of the investigation, the Tribunal recalls that it will only interfere in the case of a manifest error in the JAAB’s assessment of the facts (see Judgment 2295, under 10). Though it has read and considered all the elements submitted to it, the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence that was presented to the JAAB. The complainant’s plea concerning the absence of oral hearings is unfounded. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2893, under 5, in relevant part: “the general principles applicable to […] an appeal body [do not] require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities.” (See also Judgment 3023, under 11.) The complainant was indeed allowed to submit her written appeal in full, and in fact she also attached hundreds of annexes to be considered. The Tribunal finds that to be more than sufficient opportunity to present her case and considers that the JAAB was fully informed about the case and did not need to grant her request for oral proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 623, 2295, 2893, 3023
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3441
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law provides, in effect, that a complainant cannot ask the Tribunal to consider issues which were not a part of the case in the internal appeal proceedings. This is because if those issues were not before the internal appellate body for consideration they would be irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal remedies as Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires. (See, for example, Judgment 2808, under 9.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2808
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; new claim;
< 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 >
|
