Delay in internal procedure (696,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delay in internal procedure
Total judgments found: 96
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
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;
Judgment 3528
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Consideration 3
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 internal appeal was clearly irreceivable as it challenged a decision which was not final. As such, it could not be considered to be particularly complicated and certainly not enough to warrant internal appeal proceedings lasting almost five 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): 2522, 3160
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3151
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A]s the conciliation procedure is outside the [EPO] internal appeals procedure, it cannot be taken into account in the calculation of the delay in the internal appeals procedure.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 3143
113th Session, 2012
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The proceedings before the Joint Appeals Board took 22 months. Part of this delay – approximately five months – was due to the failure of the Administration to provide information requested by the Board. The remainder of the delay is unexplained. The issues were relatively simple, as indicated by the brevity of the Board’s report. [...] [T]he complainant is entitled to moral damages [...].
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3117
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
As the Tribunal repeatedly stated, it is incumbent upon international organisations to take all the requisite steps to ensure that requests presented by their officials are examined with acceptable promptness and that internal appeals procedures move forward with reasonable speed ( see, for example, Judgments 2197, under 33, 2904, under 15, or 3016, under 9 ).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197, 2904, 3016
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that the decision [...] breached the principle of due process in that it was taken on the basis of information which had not previously been brought to his attention. In this connexion the Tribunal notes that, when an international organisation examines a request submitted by a staff member, it is not bound to inform that person of all the steps which it is taking in that respect. On the other hand, in that or any other situation, it does have a duty to provide the person concerned with any items of information which might have a bearing on the outcome of his/her claims (see Judgments 1815, under 5, or 2315, under 27 ). [...]
However, according to the Tribunal's case law, failure to disclose an item of information will in any case not render a decision unlawful where this flaw has been remedied in the course of an internal appeal procedure or of proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 301, under 2, 1815, under 4 and 5, or 2558, under 5(a)), and that is precisely what occurred in this case since [...] a copy of the email in question was forwarded to the complainant at the same time as the disputed decision, with the result that he was duly enabled to challenge its content during the internal appeal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 301, 1815, 2315, 2558
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; due process; duty to inform; motivation;
Judgment 3108
113th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
Having submitted his application in good faith, the complainant was entitled to have it considered on its merits and in a timely manner. While it cannot be said that the complainant's contract would have been extended, the Agency's lack of diligence in its consideration of its application effectively foreclosed any possibility to have his contract extended. In these circumstances, he is not entitled to an award of the salary and benefits which he would have received if his contract had been extended as he has claimed. However, he is entitled to moral damages for the flaws identified.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; material damages; moral injury; retirement age;
Judgment 3092
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3075
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"An organisation has the duty to follow its own Rules, and to do its best to ensure the proper functioning of its internal appeal system. The application of time limits in the internal appeal procedure is a safeguard for a proper functioning of the system. The internal appeal procedure is indeed an important step in the remedying of disputes given that an appeal body's competence is broader than that of the Tribunal. Therefore, just as staff members have the duty to pursue their appeals with due diligence, an organisation has the duty to respect the time limits and cannot rely on staff members to monitor the procedures. The possibility of filing a complaint directly with the Tribunal is to be considered a further safeguard for a proper functioning of an internal appeal system and not a fast track for settling a dispute between the parties through a judgment from the Tribunal. Indeed, an internal appeal system which is not fully functional affects the right of defence."
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; delay in internal procedure; harassment;
Judgment 3068
112th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; conciliation; decision quashed; delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 3067
112th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; conciliation; decision quashed; delay in internal procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
|
