|
|
 |
|
|
Report of the internal appeals body (819,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Report of the internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 29
< previous | 1, 2
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The rationale for fully and adequately motivating the final decision on an internal appeal was relevantly stated as follows, in consideration 9 of Judgment 3727:
“It is not sufficient to explain why, in the opinion of the executive head of the organisation, the internal appeal body approached an issue in a way that was flawed. It is also necessary to explain the basis on which the conclusion actually reached by the executive head of the organisation was arrived at if it was different to the conclusion of the internal appeal body [...] In the present case, it was necessary for the Secretary General not simply to identify perceived flaws in the reasoning or procedures of the Commission said to undermine its conclusion that the post had evolved but, in addition, to explain his reasons for the conclusion that the post had been “cut”. This leads to consideration of whether, in all the circumstances, the impugned decision sufficiently explained this latter conclusion.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3727
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4426
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to retroactively promote her while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Committee was not precluded from applying its summary procedure to the appeal as the same rationale that underlies applying the summary procedure where an internal appeal is lodged out of time (avoiding procedural futility) also underlies the rationale for applying the summary procedure where a request for review is lodged out of time.
Keywords:
internal appeal; report of the internal appeals body;
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 12
Extract:
The complainants contend that the impugned decisions contain no reasoning and solely relied on the Appeals Committee’s opinion which is not acceptable and biased. The Tribunal’s case law has it that a final decision may accept the opinion or recommendations of an internal appeal body without further analysis (see, for example, Judgment 3994, consideration 12), but must be motivated if it rejects the opinion and recommendations (see Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). Accordingly, the fact that the impugned decisions merely accepted the Appeals Committee’s reasoning does not vitiate those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal reiterates that the report of an internal appeals body must contain a statement of reasons that allows it to be ascertained that that body considered the matters at issue in sufficient depth (see, for example, Judgment 4027, consideration 5). In this case, the Tribunal notes that, in its report, the Appeal Board expressed a view on all the objections submitted [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4027
Keywords:
report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4407
132nd Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award her moral damages higher than 20,000 Swiss francs for the moral injury she alleges to have suffered as a result of the personal prejudice and bias she endured during her probation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the Director-General did not err insofar as he accepted, in the impugned decision, the GBA’s conclusion that it did not find evidence that the decision to close the complainant’s End-Year PMDS with “no rating” and to extend her probationary period was tainted with bias or prejudice. In accordance with its case law, “the Tribunal shall not reweigh the evidence but shall limit itself to evaluating the lawfulness of the [...] findings and conclusions on the evidence” (see, for example, Judgment 4347, consideration 27, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal finds that the GBA’s report in the present case is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations of the GBA were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608, 4347
Keywords:
report of the internal appeals body;
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 8
Extract:
These findings reflect a balanced and thoughtful analysis by the IAC, as the primary trier of fact, of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, as such, they merit considerable deference (see Judgment 4180, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4180
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4342
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the position of Deputy General Counsel.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The report of the Board contains one further error involving the broad generalisation that there is a “broad discretionary power that the Administration retains in procedures leading to appointments at the highest levels of the Organization”. It is true that the Tribunal has consistently emphasised the broad discretionary power of an organisation to appoint a person to a position and all the more so if it is a senior position (see, for example, Judgments 4208, consideration 2, and 2897, consideration 5). But in his brief submitted to the Board, the complainant made a number of quite specific complaints in support of his statement of appeal about the procedure followed referring, in particular, either to an Information Circular specifying temporary measures to fill positions through vacancy announcements or to the staff recruitment and appointment procedures in the Human Resources Implementing Procedures (HRIP). The reply of IFAD in the internal appeal contained the overarching argument that “the applicable rules and procedures governing the selection appointment of staff members, as set out in the Human Resources Policy, the Staff Rules, the HRIP and other applicable IFAD instruments, were fully complied with”. It may be that, properly construed, the provisions relied upon by the complainant either did not apply or had been satisfied. But it is not an adequate answer simply to say there is flexibility about procedure in relation to the filling of senior positions. The arguments had to be addressed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2897, 4208
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4180
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Appeals Board’s report in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations of the Appeals Board were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4032
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to accept for consideration on the merits her compensation claim for service-incurred injury.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
The Tribunal has conducted an extensive review of the HBA’s report. It contains a comprehensive chronology that includes the meetings and communications between the complainant and WHO, the complainant’s medical assessments, time at work and sick leave, claim for disability benefits, and other events surrounding the submission of the claim for compensation. The report also includes a detailed account of the submissions of the parties. The HBA conducted a careful and thorough analysis of each of the complainant’s arguments and made findings that were fully supported by the evidence. It must also be added that on reading the report, it is evident that the HBA was cognisant of the extremely difficult position the complainant found herself in, both medically and financially, and engaged in the consideration of whether there were valid reasons for the late filing of the claim for compensation with diligence and compassion.
In Judgment 3608, under 7, the Tribunal observed that it is well settled in the case law that “in some circumstances reports of internal appeal bodies warrant ‘considerable deference’”. The HBA’s report in this case warrants that deference. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3608
Keywords:
report of the internal appeals body;
< previous | 1, 2
|
|
|
|
|
