Right of appeal (104,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Right of appeal
Total judgments found: 99
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that individual members of the Staff Committee must have the power to file suit as representatives of that body (Judgments 1147, 1269, 1315, 2036). The rationale is that if the Staff Committee is not able to file suit, the only way to preserve common rights and interests of staff is to allow individual officials to act as representatives (see Judgment 1315, under 8, referring to Judgment 1269, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1269, 1315, 2036
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; grounds; official; right of appeal; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2540
101st Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
"The Tribunal is obliged to note that it is a most serious breach of the rights of international civil servants to take retaliatory action simply because they have pursued an internal appeal. International civil servants - no matter how high their rank is - cannot protect their rights in national tribunals. Their only recourse is through the mechanisms established by the relevant Staff Rules. To punish a person because he or she has had resort to those mechanisms is a gross abuse of power warranting an award of substantial exemplary damages [...]."
Keywords:
abuse of power; amount; disciplinary measure; exemplary damages; hidden disciplinary measure; internal appeal; misuse of authority; municipal court; official; organisation's duties; right; right of appeal;
Judgment 2531
101st Session, 2006
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"A question remains as to whether the complainant was given sufficient notice of the Organization's intention not to renew his contract. Precedent has it that staff on short-term contracts are entitled, before any decision is taken not to extend or renew their appointment, to 'reasonable notice', particularly so that they may exercise their right to appeal and take whatever action may be necessary. It is true that in this case the short-term Staff Rules do not require any notice, except in the event of termination (when notice is limited to seven days), which does not apply in this case. Account should be taken, however, of the fact that the complainant was employed uninterruptedly by the Organization for more than three years. He was officially notified of the non-renewal of his contract - which until then had been regularly renewed - only by a letter he received on 28 January 2004, that is three days prior to the expiry of his last appointment. The defendant Organization suggests that he was well aware that his contract would not be renewed since he had been informed of that fact first unofficially and then officially on 16 January 2004. It even goes so far as to argue that the announcement of the competition for the complainant's post in the vacancy notice of 27 October 2003 constituted the 'reasonable notice' required by the case law and that, from that date onwards, the complainant knew full well that if he was not selected he would not continue working for the [Organization].
The Tribunal considers that it was only through the non-renewal decision received on 28 January 2004 that the complainant was able to know for certain that he would be leaving the Organization and that he would not be offered any other employment, despite the fact that [...] he had performed many duties, starting in 1998. Thus the situation is not very different from that dealt with by the Tribunal in its Judgment 2104 [...] and it is worth noting that, in its attempt to reach a settlement, the Organization had offered to pay the complainant the equivalent of three months' salary, consisting of two months in lieu of reasonable notice and one month for moral injury. That proposal was reasonable and, in view of the long working relationship between the [Organization] and the complainant and the very brief time that elapsed between the notification of the non-renewal of the contract and the end of the complainant's appointment, the Tribunal will echo that proposal by ruling that the complainant shall be paid a sum equal to three months' salary and allowances."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104
Keywords:
case law; competition; contract; decision; duty to inform; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; right of appeal; seniority; separation from service; short-term; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2345
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1(c)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under the EMBL Staff Rules and Regulations, there is no provision to appeal internally the non-renewal of a contract. "There is [...] no merit to the Laboratory's suggestion that the deliberate exclusion in the Staff Rules and Regulations of an internal appeal mechanism with regard to the non-renewal of a contract operates so as to exclude complaints to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is not determined by an organisation's Staff Rules but by the terms of the Tribunal's own Statute and the defendant organisation's submission to it. Thus, an organisation cannot unilaterally preclude the right to lodge a complaint. While it is the case that the Tribunal will often defer to discretionary decisions, the fact that a decision is discretionary does not take it outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Although a discretionary decision may warrant significant deference, it is still reviewable."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; consequence; contract; decision; definition; discretion; effect; iloat; iloat statute; internal appeal; judicial review; no provision; non-renewal of contract; omission; organisation; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant asserts that she was not given reasons for the decision not to renew her contract prior to the decision being taken. [...] The right to receive written reasons [...] implies the right to be given detailed reasons for a decision once it has been made, not prior to its making. This right ensures that an appeal can properly be taken from that decision."
Keywords:
condition; consequence; contract; date; date of notification; decision; grounds; non-renewal of contract; purpose; right; right of appeal;
Judgment 2261
95th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
The complainant challenges a disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct based on the following three charges: (1) external commercial activities and misrepresentation, (2) disloyalty, and (3) insubordination. In the challenged decision, the Director-General refused to follow the Appeals Committee's recommendation to the effect that the three charges be dismissed and confirmed the dismissal, dealing in detail with the first charge. Although the Tribunal acknowledges that the evidence justifies the Director-General's position, it sets aside the impugned decision because "the Director-General entirely failed to give any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the Committee's recommendations respecting the second and third charges". The Tribunal adds that "it is not for [...] itself [to] examine the evidence to find justification for the unmotivated decision of the Director-General. [...] Nor should it condone the organization's failure to bring the internal appeal process to a timely and proper conclusion effectively depriving the complainant of both his remedy and his employment for over three years. Accordingly, it will quash the penalty on the first charge only and refer the matter back to the Director-General for a new decision on the penalty after giving the complainant full opportunity to make representations."
Keywords:
concurrent employment; conduct; decision; disciplinary measure; due process; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; fitness for international civil service; insubordination; internal appeal; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; refusal; report; right of appeal; right to reply; separation from service; termination of employment; time limit;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the decision impugned before the Tribunal is not an administrative decision, but essentially a political one. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant was an international civil servant who was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision to terminate his appointment. That decision must be viewed as an administrative decision, even though it was taken by the Conference of the States parties."
Keywords:
decision; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat; interpretation; member state; official; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Judgment 2216
95th Session, 2003
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Article VI 1.01 of ESO's International Staff Rules reads as follows: " 'Every member of the personnel shall have the right to appeal against any decision of the Director General concerning himself.' Thus, a person who is not a "member of the personnel" has no right to launch an internal appeal and his or her only recourse is directly to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VI 1.01 OF ESO'S INTERNATIONAL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; general principle; internal appeal; official; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2139
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The right of international officials to resort to all internal and jurisdictional remedies available to them without detriment to their career is an essential guarantee to which the Tribunal attaches the greatest importance."
Keywords:
career; consequence; iloat; internal appeal; judicial review; official; right; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2095
92nd Session, 2002
Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2081
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The issue to be resolved [...] is whether the complainants are barred from objecting to the [organisation]'s failure to take into account the corrected level of salaries for 1995 in determining the salaries for 1996 and 1997, because they did not first challenge their salaries for 1996 and 1997 [... ] when they were originally fixed. But in view of the circumstances, to make such a demand on them would be pedantic and wanting in good faith. As the parties were aware at the time, the salary levels for 1995 were under challenge [...] Moreover, any change in salary levels will ordinarily affect pay in subsequent years. The staff therefore had good reason to believe that a change in pay for 1995 would have a "knock on" effect on the level of salaries used as a basis for calculating pay in the future. Moreover, the [organisation] could be in no doubt that this was what staff would expect. In these circumstances, and having given them no indication to the contrary, the [organisation] could not require staff to challenge each new determination of their salaries on the conditional and hypothetical basis that any successful challenge to the remuneration for a previous year (in this case 1995) should automatically be carried through to the salary levels taken into account in subsequent years."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; formal requirements; general principle; good faith; legitimate expectation; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; time bar;
Judgment 1832
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member who appeals to the wrong [internal appeals] body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. Time and again the Tribunal has held that, though rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must be construed with common sense and not set traps for the staff member: see Judgment1734 [and] any penalty for breaking such a rule must be reasonably fitting. [...] When there are two authorities that may be competent it is easy enough for one to forward a misdirected appeal to the other. If the staff member filed it in time, even with the wrong authority, then it will be receivable, and that authority will simply forward it without ado to the other one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734
Keywords:
competence; complainant; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1817
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given his full say."
Keywords:
case pending; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1773
85th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
"The [Organization] argues that the Tribunal is not competent to hear [the complaints]. In its submission [the] contract of employment [signed by the complainant] does not vest competence in the Tribunal but expressly provides for arbitration over any dispute. In the circumstances of the case the plea cannot succeed. The [Organization refused the complainant's] request for arbitration. Although there was no express provision vesting competence in the Tribunal to hear the dispute between the Organization and the complainant, it employed him, paid his salary and terminated his appointment. There is therefore no denying the Tribunal's competence by virtue of the general terms of Article II of its Statute. Such denial would mean either that no court at all had jurisdiction or that the case must go to the [national] courts, to whose jurisdiction the [Organization] declines to submit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; municipal court; right of appeal;
Judgment 1757
85th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Transfer is such an important decision that it must be properly accounted for. For one thing, that helps the staff member to make up his mind about what to do, for example lodge an appeal; for another, it allows review of the lawfulness of the decision. Yet the reasons need not be stated in the actual text notifying transfer: they may have been conveyed beforehand or later, even in the course of internal appeal proceedings."
Keywords:
date; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; right of appeal; transfer;
Judgment 1756
85th Session, 1998
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10(b)
Extract:
"An organisation may not deny an employee access to any significant information which it has about him and which is or may later be put in his personal file. For one thing, such information may be helpful or harmful to him; for another, he must have the opportunity of challenging or adding to it."
Keywords:
duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal file; right of appeal;
Judgment 1750
85th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent does indeed have it that non-renewal and valid reasons for it must be duly notified so that the staff member may act accordingly and in particular exercise the right of appeal [...]. The case law does not require that the reasons be stated in the text that gives notice of non-renewal."
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; right of appeal;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"According to Judgment 1330 [...] and other precedents, the right to appeal to an international administrative tribunal forms part of the essential safeguards that international civil servants must enjoy."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330
Keywords:
acquired right; case law; competence of tribunal; iloat; official; right of appeal; safeguard; terms of appointment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
