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 3439


    119th Session, 2015
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has consistently said that time limits serve the purpose of, amongst other things, creating finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective. So it is in this case. To the extent that the complainant seeks to challenge the decision to abolish his post in these proceedings and his internal appeal was time-barred, he has thus not exhausted internal remedies. His complaint, in this respect, is irreceivable."

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal; time bar;



  • Judgment 3438


    119th Session, 2015
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's request for reintegration was moot and that her other claims were devoid of merit.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has already had occasion to find, while [Staff Rule 11.1.1] makes no provision for a second exchange of written submissions, it does not rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle (see Judgment 3223, under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3223

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant [...] commented so extensively on the Secretary-General’s objections that most of her submissions to the Tribunal have been thoroughly debated by the parties in the internal appeal proceedings. In these circumstances, it would be excessively formalistic to find that there has been a breach of the right to be heard in this case."

    Keywords:

    due process; internal appeal;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal appeal; unpaid leave;



  • Judgment 3435


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the complaints were irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complainants assert that they did their utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal appeals procedure and that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, they were allowed to file directly with the Tribunal as the requirement to exhaust all internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralyzing the exercise of their rights. The Tribunal is of the opinion that even though the submission of the Organisation’s position paper was already delayed by the time the complainants
    wrote to the IAC Chairman in December 2009, and the additional six months for the expected date of submission could be considered excessive depending on the circumstances, the complainants were involved in a dialogue with the Organisation which they abruptly ended by applying directly to the Tribunal upon receiving notice of the Organisation’s intent to submit its position paper in mid-2010. Having received confirmation of the Organisation’s intent to continue the internal appeal, the complainants should have either waited for the Organisation’s position paper of June to continue the internal appeal process, or should have requested a more immediate submission date. The Tribunal notes that, though the appeal process was delayed, it was active, and the complainants could have a reasonable expectation of receiving a final decision which they could then contest before the Tribunal if they found it necessary. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider that the complainants had truly done their utmost to pursue their internal appeal and the complaints are considered premature and must be dismissed as irreceivable for failure to exhaust all means of internal redress. As they are irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Tribunal shall examine neither other issues of receivability, nor the merits of the complaints."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3429


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but awarded damages to the complainant because of the delay in the appeals procedure.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal points out that a claim concerning the excessive length of the appeal proceedings is, by its very nature, one that could not have been raised before the IAC (see Judgment 2744, under 6). Thus, the claim is receivable [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2744

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that the appeal was not a particularly complicated one, the complainant was not responsible in any way for the delay in the proceedings, and the EPO has provided no justification whatsoever for the delay in submitting its position paper. Thus, the Tribunal finds that this constitutes an excessive delay in the procedure and merits an award of damages [...]."

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3425


    119th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: After his contract was terminated, the complainant successfully challenges the rejection of his appeal, for lack of formal notification.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3424


    119th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "It is clear that that decision is unlawful. The mere fact that the Fund rendered it impossible for the complainant’s appeal to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules, owing to the abolition of the post of the authority competent to hear it, is sufficient to vitiate the decision taken on this appeal."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "When it transpires that the internal appeal procedure in force in an international organisation has not been followed properly, the Tribunal often decides – in some instances on its own initiative – to remit the case to the organisation, in order that the competent appeal bodies can hear it, rather than to examine its merits (see, for example, Judgments 1007, 2341, 2530, 2781 or 3067)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1007, 2341, 2530, 2781, 3067

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; internal appeal;

    Consideration 11(a) and (b)

    Extract:

    "(a) First, it should be recalled that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, 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, the above-mentioned Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3067, under 20). This is especially true since 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. Consequently, although in this case the complainant himself was mistaken as to his right to resort to the internal appeal procedure, it would be inappropriate to deprive him of the benefit of that procedure.
    (b) Secondly, apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, 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 lodged, 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, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). As rightly pointed out by the defendant, the Appeal Board 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 broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, 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."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 6(a)

    Extract:

    "It is true that, contrary to the Fund’s submissions, its former employees do not have access to the internal appeal procedure for which the applicable regulations make provision. Indeed, the regulations in force at the material time, as well as those which replaced them with effect from 1 August 2012, provide that the internal means of redress are open to “employees”, but there is nothing in the texts governing the organisation’s staff which specifies that this term also refers to former employees. The Tribunal has already had occasion to find, with regard to other international organisations’ staff rules and regulations couched in similar language, that in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the applicable texts, this term must be interpreted as referring solely to serving staff members (see, in particular, Judgments 2840, under 17 to 21, 2892, under 6 to 8, or 3074, under 11 to 13). The Fund’s argument that, in practice, the Appeal Board has so far agreed to consider appeals filed by former employees is no bar to the application of that case law."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 2892, 3074

    Keywords:

    exception; former official; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; status of complainant;

    Consideration 6(b)

    Extract:

    "Before leaving the organisation, [the complainant] had sufficient time to lodge an internal appeal against the disputed decision, and the fact that he subsequently ceased to be an employee of the Fund did not deprive him of the possibility of pursuing those proceedings to the end (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3202, under 10). Indeed, the question whether an employee separating from an organisation has access to the internal means of redress must be determined, for the entire appeal procedure, at the date on which he or she receives notification of the decision he or she intends to challenge, and subsequent events have no bearing on this issue (see also a contrario the above-mentioned Judgments 2892, under 8, and 3074, under 13)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892, 3074, 3202

    Keywords:

    former official; internal appeal;

    Consideration 8(b)

    Extract:

    "It is true that the two successive appeals thus lodged by the complainant were not submitted to the authorities competent to hear them. But consistent 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, or 3027, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3027

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; organisation's duties;

    Consideration 8(a)

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal’s case law, for a letter, or an e-mail, addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein his or her intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting him or her and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgments 461, under 3, 1172, under 7, 2572, under 9, and 3067, under 16)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 461, 1172, 3067

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 3423


    119th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract;

    Consideration 7(a)

    Extract:

    "It is true that [the Fund's] former employees do not have access to the internal appeal procedure for which the applicable regulations make provision. Indeed, the regulations in force at the material time [...] provide that the internal means of redress are open to “employees”, but there is nothing in the texts governing the organisation’s staff which specifies that this term also refers to former employees. The Tribunal has already had occasion to find, with regard to other international organisations’ staff rules and regulations couched in similar language, that in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the applicable texts, this term must be interpreted as referring solely to serving staff members (see, in particular, Judgments 2840, under 17 to 21, 2892, under 6 to 8, or 3074, under 11 to 13)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 2892, 3074

    Keywords:

    exception; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; status of complainant;

    Consideration 7(b)

    Extract:

    "[T]he question whether an employee separating from an organisation has access to the internal means of redress must be determined, for the entire appeal procedure, at the date on which he or she receives notification of the decision he or she intends to challenge, and subsequent events have no bearing on this issue (see also a contrario [...] Judgments 2892, under 8, and 3074, under 13)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892, 3074

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;

    Consideration 9(a)

    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 his or her intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting him or her and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgments 461, under 3, 1172, under 7, 2572, under 9, and 3067, under 16)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 461, 1172, 2572, 3067

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not, however, examine the merits of the complaints in these proceedings.
    When it transpires that the internal appeal procedure in force in an international organisation has not been followed properly, the Tribunal often decides – in some instances on its own initiative – to remit the case to the organisation, in order that the competent appeal bodies can hear it, rather than examine its merits (see, for example, Judgments 1007, 2341, 2530, 2781 or 3067)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1007, 2341, 2530, 2781, 3067

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; internal appeal;

    Consideration 12(a) and (b)

    Extract:

    "(a) First, it should be recalled that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, 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 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. Consequently, although in this case the complainants themselves were mistaken as to their right to resort to the internal appeal procedure, it would be inappropriate to deprive them of the benefit of that procedure.
    (b) Secondly, apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, 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 lodged, 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, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). As rightly pointed out by the defendant, the Appeal Board 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 broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2781, 2811, 3067

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body;

    Consideration 9(b)

    Extract:

    It is true that the two successive appeals thus lodged by the complainants were not submitted to the authorities competent to hear them. But consistent 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, or 3027, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3027

    Keywords:

    competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 3410


    119th Session, 2015
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges IFAD's decision not to consider his appeal against the non-renewal of his contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3406


    119th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint (relating to dependant child allowance) for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Considerations 12-13

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466, 2722 and 2821, 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 he or she purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, and 1466, under 5 and 6).
    It is true that the Tribunal’s case law as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 2821 allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2722, 2821

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3405


    119th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge the implied decision to reject their claims relating to tax relief for dependant children (for irreceivability).

    Considerations 16-17

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466, 2722 and 2821, 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 he or she purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, and 1466, under 5 and 6).
    It is true that the Tribunal’s case law as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 2821 allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2722, 2821

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3361


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision rejecting her request seeking payment of the costs of an orthodontic treatment and a surgical operation.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants. The ultimate decision-maker cannot therefore depart from the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without giving adequate reasons for her or his decision (see Judgments 2699, under 24, 2833, under 4, and 3208, under 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 2833, 3208

    Keywords:

    internal appeal;



  • Judgment 3354


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal set aside the decision dismissing the complainant’s request for the reimbursement of pharmaceutical costs on the ground that the case should have been referred to the Medical Committee.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "A hearing of any internal appeal body provides an opportunity for the parties to articulate more fully their case and to answer questions from the members of the appeal body."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 3311


    117th Session, 2014
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal considers the complaint irreceivable on the ground that the complainant has not respected the time limits of the internal appeal procedure.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal appeal; time limit;



  • Judgment 3302


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints were dismissed for non-exhaustion of internal remedies under Article 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2780, 2811, 2939

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; decision; delay; duty of care; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 3301


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant through five irreceivable complaints requested information concerning facts that occurred before his retirement for disability.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Rules
    Organization rules reference: Articles 107, par. 2, and 109, par. 3, of the Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; decision; express decision; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 3291


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;



  • Judgment 3282


    116th Session, 2014
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The guarantee of access to justice is a guarantee of access to a judge, which the complainant has in his ability to bring a complaint before the Tribunal. [...] In this case, Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules provides that there is no internal remedy for decisions regarding non-renewal of contract and as such, the complainant has direct access to the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; internal appeal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; right; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3267


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugned the decision not to waive the time limit for lodging an internal appeal, claiming that his heavy workload constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the grant of a waiver.

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    "It was not in issue that under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3) the discretionary power to waive the time limits can be exercised in exceptional circumstances. That is what the rule said. In its reasons, the Board pointed to the need for certainty that is created by time limits but noted the discretion to waive them in exceptional circumstances. It did not consider there were such circumstances and that the complainant’s workload would not have prevented him from bringing his appeal in time, though it accepted that may have contributed to him overlooking the time limits.
    This reasoning is quite unexceptionable. The complainant argued the reasoning contained a “contradiction”. He pointed to the Board’s acknowledgement in its reasons that the complainant’s heavy workload may possibly have been a contributing factor in the complainant overlooking the deadline. However the substance of what the Board was saying was that it was not satisfied the circumstances were exceptional. It needed to be positively satisfied that they were before it could exercise the discretionary power to waive the time limits. There has been no miscarriage of the exercise of the discretionary power. The Board was not obliged, as the complainant submitted, to involve the Administration and it had power, under Staff Rule 11.1.1(e)(3)(b), to summarily dismiss the appeal as clearly irreceivable. It did so. The complaint to the Tribunal should be dismissed."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3)

    Keywords:

    discretion; exception; internal appeal; time limit; waiver of internal appeal procedure;



  • Judgment 3253


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. If that cannot be done (perhaps because the document was sent by a system of transmission that does not permit actual proof), the Tribunal will ordinarily accept what is said by the addressee about the date of receipt (see, generally, Judgments 447, consideration 2; 456, consideration 7; 723, consideration 4; 890, consideration 4; 930, consideration 8; 2473, consideration 4; and 2494, consideration 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 447, 456, 723, 890, 930, 2473, 2494

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; date of notification; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; late appeal; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised that internal appeals are an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony (see, for example, Judgment 3184, consideration 15). Also, the internal appeal process is ordinarily an extremely significant element of the entire system of review of administrative decisions affecting the rights of staff employed by organisations which have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3222, consideration 9). Moreover, every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on his or her performance on which her or his career may depend (see, for example, Judgment 3241, consideration 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184, 3222, 3241

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3234


    115th Session, 2013
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319

    Keywords:

    advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;

< 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: 07.03.2024 ^ top