Delay in internal procedure (696,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delay in internal procedure
Total judgments found: 90
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4555
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to pay him the additional installation allowance in respect of his second child following his transfer to The Hague.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant contests the award of 250 euros and claims 1,000 euros in moral damages for the delay instead. However, as he does not explain why the amount that he was awarded was insufficient, his claim will be dismissed.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages;
Judgment 4553
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover sums which were unduly paid to him as dependent child allowance.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant takes issue with the slowness of the internal appeal procedure, he has not shown in his submissions that he thereby suffered injury warranting higher compensation than the sum of 200 euros already awarded to him under that head in the impugned decision.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 4501
134th Session, 2022
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 fixed-term appointment beyond its expiry date while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he compensation awarded to the complainant in Judgment 4170, which had the effect of rendering moot the financial claims made in her appeal, had thus removed the essential issue from the dispute, which, under the Tribunal’s case law, precludes recognition of injury arising from the undue length of the internal appeal procedure (see, for example, on that point, Judgment 4493, considerations 8 and 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4170, 4493
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4493
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him moral damages for the length of the internal appeal procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has consistently stated that the complainant shall produce evidence of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the length of the procedure and the injury (see Judgment 4306, at consideration 19, recalling the principle also set out in Judgment 1942, consideration 6):
“[The complainant] provides no evidence of emotional distress or of any other injury or loss suffered. The case law, for example in consideration 5 of Judgment 4156, requires a complainant to provide evidence of the injury suffered as a result of alleged unlawful acts. In the premises, the Tribunal finds that the complainant is not entitled to an award of moral damages [...]”
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the Tribunal does not automatically grant moral damages for excessive delay. The complainant has to articulate the adverse effects of the delay and support them with evidence. The Tribunal observes that in the present case, the complainant eventually achieved the expected productivity factor and his productivity was thus evaluated as “good” in his staff report for 2006-2007. The warning letter was also removed from the complainant’s personal file in October 2012. There is no evidence showing that the length of the appeal proceedings had an adverse consequence on the complainant’s career, or caused the complainant to sustain psychological pressure, stress, anxiety, or other moral injury in his professional and personal life. It is obviously not sufficient for the complainant merely to adduce his testimony to allege the injury.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 4156, 4306
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4487
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that the arrears owed to him in respect of his invalidity allowance, related benefits and unused leave following a retroactive modification of the monthly gross salary scales in December 2012 were not paid to him until January 2013.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant challenges the excessive length of the internal appeal and seeks compensation by way of moral damages, stating that neither the complexity of the case, nor the ancillary partiality objection raised during the internal proceedings justified its length. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organisation owes to its staff members. The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations: the length of the delay and the effect of the delay (see Judgment 4229, consideration 5). Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant (see Judgment 4100, consideration 7). Recent case law holds that an unreasonable delay in an internal appeal is not sufficient to award moral damages. It is also required that the complainant articulate the adverse effects which the delay has caused (see Judgment 4396, consideration 12: “[n]otwithstanding that there was unreasonable delay in the internal appeal process, the moral damages which the complainant seeks under this head will not be awarded, as he has not articulated the effects which the delay has caused”; see also Judgments 4147, consideration 13, 4231, consideration 15, and 4392, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100, 4147, 4229, 4231, 4392, 4396
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4482
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14.
Consideration 16
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant seeks moral damages for the length of the internal appeal, it is by no means obvious that he suffered a moral injury having left the Organisation in 2016, and, in any event, he has not demonstrated that he has.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; former official; moral injury;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[O]ver one year elapsed between the lodging by the complainant of his psychological harassment complaint and the notification of the decision to close it, which informed him of the outcome of the preliminary investigation. In Judgment 4243, the Tribunal states that harassment cases should be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible (see also Judgment 3660, consideration 7). As the complainant rightly points out in his complaint, the Tribunal has consistently held, inter alia, in Judgments 3692, consideration 18, and 3777, consideration 7, that an organisation has a duty to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into harassment complaints. The Policy of Eurocontrol echoes this. It provides that the Director General will, without delay, set up a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether the internal harassment complaint warrants the convening of the Disciplinary Board; it also provides that this investigation will be performed with the minimum of delay consistent with fairness to both parties (paragraph 4.7 of the Guidelines and Procedures to support the Policy). It should be added that the Tribunal emphasises in several judgments that the duty of care requires an allegation of harassment to be investigated promptly (see, for example, Judgments 2636, consideration 28, 3337, considerations 11 and 15, and 3365, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 3337, 3365, 3660, 3692, 3777, 4243
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Consideration 11
Extract:
A delay of more than one year between the lodging by the complainant of his psychological harassment complaint and the notification of the Director General’s decision to close the case does not indicate quick and efficient handling of a harassment case or expeditious action with the minimum of delay consistent with fairness to both parties. The Tribunal’s case law recognises the harm that this may cause to a complainant (see, for example, Judgments 3347, consideration 14, and 4241, consideration 4). In its reply, Eurocontrol explains that it proved difficult to appoint investigators owing to potential conflicts of interest with the complainant; that sick leave unexpectedly delayed the appointment of one of the investigators; and that summer holidays and the need to translate the complainant’s harassment complaint delayed his interview until September 2015. In view of Eurocontrol’s obligation to act expeditiously with the minimum of delay consistent with fairness to both parties, these explanations relating to internal administrative matters are inadequate.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347, 4241
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4470
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns Eurocontrol’s decision to stop payment, as from 1 August 2016, of the education allowance and the dependent child allowance which he was receiving in respect of his daughter.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal fails to see how the timeframe within which the Joint Committee for Disputes met and issued its opinion of itself renders that opinion and the subsequent decision unlawful. Although Article 4 of [...] Office Notice No. 06/11 of 7 March 2011 provides that the Committee should “preferably” give a reasoned opinion within “sixty days subsequent to the receipt of the request for an opinion”, this requirement is not absolute and failure to comply with this timeframe only means that the Director General of Eurocontrol may take his or her decision without receiving the Committee’s opinion. Similarly, the second subparagraph of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency provides, first, that the Director General is to notify the person concerned of her or his reasoned decision “within four months from the date on which the [internal] complaint was lodged” and, second, that “[i]f at the end of that period no reply to the complaint has been received, this shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which an appeal may be lodged [with the Tribunal]”. Furthermore, the fact that over one year passed before an express decision was adopted on the complainant’s internal complaint, even if that delay is considered unreasonable, cannot, of itself, have adversely affected his right of effective appeal to the Tribunal: first, he successfully filed this complaint and his entitlements would be fully restored if the Tribunal were to allow it; second, under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, if he had wished, he could have filed a complaint against Eurocontrol’s implicit decision earlier on account of the failure to reply to the internal complaint that he lodged on 18 October 2016.
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay in internal procedure; direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 4457
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 29
Extract:
It is settled case law that officials are entitled to have their appeals examined with the necessary speed, in particular in view of the nature of the decision which they wish to contest (see, for example, Judgments 2902, consideration 16, 4063, consideration 14, or 4310, consideration 15).
In this case, although the complainant had referred the matter to the Appeals Board on 14 April 2017, the Director-General, as has been stated, did not adopt a decision on this appeal until 10 July 2018, almost 15 months later.
The Tribunal finds that, while it may not appear unreasonable in absolute terms, this delay is excessive in view of the nature of the case, since it concerned a summary dismissal on disciplinary grounds.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 4063, 4310
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4449
133rd Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks additional compensation for the delay in dealing with her harassment complaint.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[B]y quoting Judgment 3314, consideration 25, concerning WHO, the complainant alleges that the delay to process the harassment complaint amounted itself to continued harassment. Judgment 3314, consideration 25, reads as follows: “In summary, the Organization breached Staff Rule 1230.3.3, the complainant’s contract and its duty to provide her with a congenial working environment. In effect, the Organization denied the complainant the due process to which she was entitled in the investigation of her harassment complaint. The result was a delay which exposed the complainant to continued harassment.” In that case, it was the organization’s failure in its duty to provide a congenial harassment-free workplace that had caused the complainant a further harassment. In the present case, the complainant separated from WHO shortly after filing her harassment complaint. Her situation is therefore not comparable to that of the complainant in the case leading to Judgment 3314. Also, there is no evidence to prove that actions of the Administration in the internal procedures constituted harassment.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; harassment; precedent;
Judgment 4445
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the procedure regarding his harassment complaint against his former supervisor.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal accepts that the time between 30 August 2013 when the complainant filed his harassment complaint and his receipt of the impugned decision in November 2018 was too long. However, the complainant has not articulated the effect which the delay has had on him (see, for example, Judgment 4147, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4147
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4444
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant claims moral damages for extensive delays in the internal appeal process. [The internal process] involved a period of almost three years, which was too long. As the complainant submits that this delay caused him “extreme suffering”, which he has articulated and which the Tribunal accepts, he is entitled to moral damages for which the Tribunal will award him 5,000 euros.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4425
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her request for reimbursement of the cost of her spa cure as a type A cure undergone for “absolute medical necessity”.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages not based on delay, the case law states that the complainant bears the burden of proof and must provide evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury. The case law further states that the mere fact a decision was initially flawed does not suffice to warrant awarding damages for moral injury and, to be entitled to moral damages, an official must have suffered more severe injury than that which an improper decision ordinarily causes (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). The complainant provides no evidence to show that she has suffered more severe injury than that which an improper decision ordinarily caused her. Her claim for moral damages for the delay in the internal appeal process is however well founded, as a period of almost four years from the filing of the request for review to the issuing of the impugned decision is too long and, additionally, the complainant has provided evidence of the injury (the stress) which that delay caused her. She will therefore be awarded the amount of 2,500 euros in moral damages for the delay in the internal appeal process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[The] claims for moral damages for delay in the internal appeal procedures are also unfounded. Although the period of about four and a half years from the lodging of the requests for review to the issuance of the impugned decisions is too long in the present circumstances, the complainants have not articulated the effect caused by the delay (see, for example, Judgment 3582, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4399
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him from a manager position to a non-managerial post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant claims that the internal appeal procedure was egregiously delayed. The procedure began with the complainant’s letter dated 8 March 2010 requesting that the transfer be set aside “for formal and procedural flaws, overlooking of material facts or obviously wrong conclusions which have been drawn from evidence on which the decision was based” and that he be reinstated to his previous post. The Office did not file its position paper on the appeal until 12 January 2012, the IAC presented its opinion on 23 April 2013, and the Office failed to provide the complainant with a final decision by the agreed upon extended deadline of 24 July 2013. This constituted unreasonable delay in the internal appeal proceedings. The damage to the complainant which this delay occasioned is obvious considering the simplicity of the appeal and the urgency of the need for a remedy regarding the unwanted transfer. The Tribunal will therefore award moral damages on this ground.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages;
Judgment 4396
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Notwithstanding that there was unreasonable delay in the internal appeal process, the moral damages which the complainant seeks under this head will not be awarded, as he has not articulated the effects which the delay has caused (see, for example, Judgment 4100, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 4392
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw the disciplinary sanction of reprimand and remove it from her personal file.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he two-year period within which the Appeals Committee provided its opinion after the complainant lodged her internal appeal was not unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. Moreover, she has not articulated the adverse impact which the alleged delay had on her (see, for example, Judgments 4231, consideration 15, and 4147, consideration 13). The Tribunal accordingly rejects the request for compensation for procedural delay.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4147, 4231
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant’s request for moral damages for breach of duty of care will [...] be rejected, as will his request for moral damages for the length of the procedures deliberately delayed by the EPO and the harm caused to his health and dignity. While it is true that this procedure, which spanned almost six years for reasons mostly attributable to the EPO, was unreasonably long, the Tribunal considers that this excessively long period did not in itself cause serious injury to the complainant (see Judgment 4222, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4222
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4390
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for alleged delays in the processing of his request to transfer previously acquired pension rights to the EPO’s pension scheme.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Appeals Committee correctly concluded that although the Office could have dealt with the request more speedily the complainant did not substantiate the effect which the delay had upon him and the consequential damages to which he was entitled (see, for example, Judgments 4031, consideration 8, and 4231, consideration 15). Having analysed the relevant time periods and the evidence presented by the complainant, with reference to Judgment 2608, consideration 11, the Appeals Committee had correctly found that there was no undue delay that caused material damage to the complainant and that, moreover, he did not suffer financial loss in the transfer value of his pension rights. This claim for damages is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2608, 4031, 4231
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4316
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of fixed “bridging days” to balance the number of public holidays at the different places of employment.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[T]he claims for moral damages will be rejected as the complainants have not convincingly articulated the adverse effects of the delay.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
