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 4064
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a request made by the Administration of the FAO that he provide comments, while he was on certified sick leave, on a report issued by the Investigation Panel appointed to investigate allegations of harassment against him.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he internal appeal process, which took some twenty-eight months to be completed, was too long. For this, the complainant will be awarded 2,000 euros in moral damages.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4063
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its consistent case law according to which a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgment 3336, consideration 6). In this case, the complainant submitted his detailed appeal to the Appeals Board on 11 March 2015 – following the public delivery of Judgment 3398 – and the decision of the Director-General on this appeal was issued only on 2 August 2016, that is almost seventeen months later.
Given the nature of the case, which concerns a termination for disciplinary reasons, the Tribunal considers that such a period of time was excessive and that, in this regard, moral damages should be awarded to the complainant in the amount of 1,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3336
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; disciplinary measure; moral injury;
Judgment 4031
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the step level he was placed in upon implementation of a new local salary scale for General Service staff in New Delhi, India.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submits that he suffered injury as a consequence of the “inordinate, inexplicable and inexcusable” delay in the internal appeal process. He seeks moral damages on this account. The Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows in Judgment 3160, consideration 17:
“The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. 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.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; moral injury; patere legem; reasonable time;
Judgment 3999
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The time that elapsed from the filing of the internal appeal until the Appeal Board issued its conclusions was approximately 16 months. This included a period during which extensions were granted with respect to the filing of the submissions while there were attempts to reach a settlement. The Director General’s final decision was notified to the complainant within the time limit provided by the Staff Regulations and Rules. In these circumstances the Tribunal does not consider the duration of the internal appeal proceedings to be excessive.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 3975
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, the successors of a former official of the EPO who passed away, filed a complaint with the Tribunal, considering that there has been an implied decision to reject his internal appeals.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Although the amount of time that the EPO has taken to process these internal appeals appears, prima facie, to be excessively long, the Tribunal notes that the public delivery on 30 November 2016 of Judgment 3785, dealing with the composition of the Appeals Committee, may well account for the fact that the complainants did not receive a final decision at the end of 2016. Indeed, given the finding of the Tribunal that the Appeals Committee was not composed in accordance with the applicable rules, a final decision could not have been based on the opinion of the Appeals Committee in relation to the internal appeals.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3785
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3967
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The claim for moral damages for the excessive delay in the internal appeal proceedings is well founded as it is clear that the EPO breached its obligation to ensure that its internal procedure moved forward with reasonable speed (see, for example, Judgment 2197, consideration 33). [...] That period of more than six years in the internal appeal proceedings constituted excessive delay, even taking into consideration the complainant’s illness and the efforts which were made to amicably settle the matter. For this, the complainant will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros, particularly given the length of the delay and the impact of that delay on him in his personal circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal procedure;
Judgment 3966
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the behaviour of his director which he characterises as harassment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for an award of punitive damages for the delay will be dismissed. The Tribunal has stated, for example in Judgment 2935, consideration 5, that an award of punitive damages can be made only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation’s conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith. There is no evidence that the EPO acted in bad faith with respect to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings. However, the complainant will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 6,000 euros, particularly given the length of the delay and the impact of that delay on him in his personal circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2935
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; punitive damages;
Judgment 3963
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the Organisation has breached its duty of care in relation to possible taxation of the invalidity allowance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant also requests compensation in the amount of 5,000 euros for the moral injury caused by the excessive duration of the proceedings which, he contends, lasted “more than [six] years”. It must be noted that the duration alleged by the complainant includes phases after October 2007 when informal requests were made. However, for the purpose of determining the duration of the proceedings, the starting date must be deemed to be that on which the internal appeal was filed, namely 7 May 2010. As the date on which it was dismissed was 5 February 2014, the internal appeal proceedings lasted almost four years and not “more than [six] years”. Nevertheless, the Tribunal considers that this duration is still excessive. The EPO has not explained why it needed virtually two years as from the date on which the internal appeal was filed to submit its position thereupon. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the complainant must be awarded moral damages in the amount of 3,500 euros for the inordinate length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 3935
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses his former supervisor of moral harassment.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s contention that in this case UNESCO breached the time limits prescribed in the provisions governing the appeals procedure is well founded. [...]
It is true that, as UNESCO rightly points out, the failure to observe the aforementioned provisions of the Statutes of the Appeals Board did not seriously infringe the complainant’s rights, and the delays, some of which are attributable to the complainant, can partly be explained by the unusual complexity of the case. It should also be borne in mind that the Director-General’s final decision was preceded by discussions with the complainant aimed at reaching a settlement, which obviously delayed its adoption.
Nevertheless, the Organization was obliged, in accordance with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, to adhere more strictly to the procedural time limits laid down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. Its failure to do so caused the complainant moral injury, for which he legitimately claims redress (see, for similar cases, Judgments 3579, under 4, and 3688, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3579, 3688
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; organisation's duties; patere legem; time limit;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
As to delay in the internal appeals process, the Tribunal notes that the internal appeal to the Appeals Committee was lodged on 23 June 2014. The Committee, it appears, did not meet to consider the case until 14 October 2015 and reported on 19 February 2016 resulting in a decision of the Director-General on 9 May 2016. This delay is excessive (though the time taken for the initial appeal to the Director-General is not) and no explanation or answer is provided by the FAO in its reply. Indeed it makes no submissions on this question at all. The complainant is entitled to moral damages for this delay.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 3925
125th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his application for payment of language training fees.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant [...] complains of the slow handling of his internal complaint. The Tribunal observes that whereas Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency specifies a time limit of four months for the Director General to notify the person concerned of his reasoned decision, in this case such a decision was taken only after nine months. Although that length of time is not unreasonable in absolute terms, it nevertheless constitutes a breach by Eurocontrol of its own rules, which caused the complainant moral injury that likewise warrants redress.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; patere legem;
Judgment 3894
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that there has been an implied decision to reject his internal appeal and he bases his complaint on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the amount of time that the EPO has taken to process an internal appeal concerning a suspension from service appears, prima facie, to be excessively long, the Tribunal notes that the public delivery on 30 November 2016 of Judgment 3785, dealing with the composition of the Appeals Committee, may well account for the fact that the complainant did not receive a final decision at the end of 2016. Indeed, given the finding of the Tribunal that the Appeals Committee was not composed in accordance with the applicable rules, the President of the Office could not have based his final decision on the opinion of the Appeals Committee in relation to the complainant’s internal appeal.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3892
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that no final decision has yet been taken on her internal appeal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The circumstances of this case are not such that the exercise of the complainant’s right of appeal can be said to be paralysed. The Tribunal recognises that its finding in Judgments 3694 and 3785 that the composition of the Appeals Committee was unlawful is liable to have repercussions on many other decisions taken by the EPO’s appointing authorities on internal appeals, in addition to the decisions impugned in the complaints leading to those judgments. However, the necessary reorganisation of the Appeals Committee’s workload that this will entail, which, in view of the number of appeals concerned, can be expected to take some time, has not paralysed the exercise of the complainant’s rights.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3694, 3785
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3782
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the classification of their posts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The claim for moral damages for the excessive delay in the internal appeal proceedings is founded. Consistent case law holds that an unjustified duration of four years for the processing of an internal appeal constitutes an excessive delay. In the present case, the EPO has not justified in any way the three-year delay from the time of the filing of the internal appeals and the filing of its position paper. Considering the length of the delay, the nature of the question raised, and the age of the complainants, the Tribunal sets the award of moral damages in the amount of 3,000 euros per complainant.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; delay; delay in internal procedure; post classification;
Judgment 3773
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the calculation of the number of years of service taken into consideration to determine the date on which she became eligible for personal promotion.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that international organisations must respond to requests from their staff members within a reasonable period of time (see Judgment 3188, under 5). In the instant case, in March 2011 the complainant asked the ILO when she would become eligible for a personal promotion. It was not until 5 December 2012, in other words more than one and a half years later, that the ILO gave her an initial reply. The Tribunal considers that this delay is abnormal and constitutes a breach of the Organization’s duty of diligence towards a member of its staff. This breach is all the more glaring for the fact that the Organization’s reply was merely provisional, since the issue of how to calculate years of service under daily contracts had been referred to a joint panel. This situation caused the complainant moral injury [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3188
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 3755
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the Organization did not process the internal appeal with the requisite promptness and diligence. According to well-established case law, “[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed” (see Judgments 2197, under 33, and 2841, under 9). A period of approximately two years is plainly unreasonable in light of all the circumstances of the case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197, 2841
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 3691
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the salary deductions made following their participation in strikes.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A]s noted in the Tribunal’s case law, it is impractical for complainants to submit specific claims (in their appeals) against delays in the internal appeal procedure as they cannot know when the procedure will finish (see Judgments 2744, consideration 6, and 3429, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2744, 3429
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 3688
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her post and to separate her from service.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The delays in the HBA proceedings were unreasonable and were not caused by wrongful procedural conduct on the part of the complainant and there is no indication that the HBA’s workload justified it. The delay before the HBA was mainly caused by the necessity to request information and documents from WHO, which should have been provided early in the process.
The delay entitles the complainant to an award of moral damages for the defendant’s breach of its duties of due diligence and care (see Judgments 2522, under 7, 3160, under 16, and 3188, under 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 3160, 3188
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
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.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that international organisations have a duty to ensure that internal appeals are conducted with due diligence and with due regard to the duty of care owed to staff members (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). While the time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the specific circumstances of a given case, in this case the appeal was clearly unfounded. As such, it could not be considered to be particularly complicated and certainly not enough to warrant internal appeal proceedings lasting more than four years. Such a delay is indeed egregious and the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages.
“The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. 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. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member.” (See Judgment 3160, under 17.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
