Direct appeal to Tribunal (85, 25, 779, 780,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Direct appeal to Tribunal
Total judgments found: 151
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 3646
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General not to allow him to proceed directly to the Tribunal in respect of his appeal against WIPO’s alleged failure to ensure that he was not subjected to intimidation, offensive behaviour or aggression.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Situations can arise where the Tribunal entertains and adjudicates on a complaint where the complainant has not exhausted internal remedies but it is apparent that the internal appeal process has paralysed the exercise of the complainant’s rights (see, for example, Judgment 2039, consideration 4). However, mere dissatisfaction with the composition of the internal appeal body does not found a right to bring a complaint directly to the Tribunal (see Judgment 3190, consideration 9). Nothing advanced by the complainant establishes that he is entitled to bring his grievance directly to the Tribunal. It is true that his grievance, in the most general sense, has subsisted for many years and has already twice been considered by the Tribunal. But that fact does not absolve the complainant from satisfying the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute that the impugned decision is a final decision and that the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2039, 3190
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3561
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3141 on the basis that a new fact has allegedly come to light.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he condition that internal means of redress must be exhausted would in any case not apply in respect of compensation for damage related to the length of proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 2744, under 6, and 3429, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2744, 3429
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury;
Judgment 3558
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust internal remedies.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The clear and consistent authority of the Tribunal is that a complaint filed directly with the Tribunal is irreceivable unless a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only then that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances. A complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1486, under 11, 1674, under 6(b), and 2039, under 4 and 6(b), and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 1674, 2039
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3554
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust internal remedies.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Referring to its case law, the Tribunal emphasised that a complainant cannot claim to have exhausted the internal means of redress simply because he or she has sent an ultimatum to the decision-making authority to no avail
(see Judgment 3302, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3302
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3552
120th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of a claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 3456, under 4, and 2948, under 7). While it is clear from the case law that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of a complainant’s rights (see, Judgment 2039, under 4), a complainant will be exempted from that requirement only where she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, under 6(b), and 1970). The content of the present complaint does not show any efforts of the complainant to obtain the necessary final decision. Consequently, his complaint is clearly irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1970, 2039, 2948, 3456
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3505
120th Session, 2015
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 sick leave entitlement beyond the date on which her appointment expired.
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, when under an organisation’s Staff Rules and Staff Regulations only serving staff members have access to the internal appeal procedures, former officials have no possibility of using them and they are then entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 2840, under 21, 3074, under 13, or 3156, under 9). [...]
However […], as the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3398 under 2 and 6, the internal means of redress established by the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules are open to any person who has been affected by a decision in his or her capacity as an official, even if he or she has since left the Organization. A staff member of UNESCO whose appointment has ended is therefore still entitled to use the internal means of redress if he or she wishes to challenge a decision taken before his or her separation. It must be noted that, although in such a case this rule will also have the effect of depriving the former staff member of the possibility of filing a complaint directly with the Tribunal, it provides that person with the essential safeguard constituted by the right of officials to pursue an internal appeal against any decision harming their interests."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 3074, 3156, 3398
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; former official;
Judgment 3498
120th Session, 2015
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant is seeking retroactive admission into the EMBL pension scheme as from the commencement of his service at EMBL.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; pension entitlements;
Judgment 3463
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are summarily dismissed because, by the time they were filed, there had been a decision on the complainants' claim, which precludes the challenging of an implied rejection of their requests for review.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The evidence provided by the complainants shows that, at its 136th meeting [in] June 2013 (before these complaints were filed), the Administrative Council decided to forward their requests for review to the President of the Office. Thus, by the time they filed their complaints in July, August and September of that year, there had been a decision on their claim within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, namely to undertake a review, which, according to Tribunal’s well established case law, precludes reliance on that provision (see, for example, Judgment 786, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 786
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;
Judgment 3458
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints, clearly irreceivable, are summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgments 3190, under 9, and 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein). According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint shall not be receivable unless a final decision is impugned, the person concerned having exhausted such other means of resisting as are open to her or him under the applicable staff regulations (see, for example, Judgment 163).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 163, 2811, 3190
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 3456
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints, essentially identical and clearly irreceivable, were summarily dismissed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"On the guidance of Judgments 3301, under 5, and 2479, under 2, for example, the Tribunal considers that these complaints constitute an abuse of process for the following reasons. First, they are essentially identical complaints. In the second place, they are clearly irreceivable on a number of grounds. The first is that the complaints do not impugn final decisions, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 2479, 2948, 3050, 3301, 3302 and 3326). Moreover, the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body, constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see Judgment 2948, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2479, 2948, 3050, 3301, 3302, 3326
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3442
119th Session, 2015
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.
Considerations 7 and 8
Extract:
"[B]efore the complaint was brought directly to the Tribunal, the complainant had to inform the OPCW of his continued interest in his internal appeal, thus putting it on notice that he wanted the process to proceed. The Tribunal will assume jurisdiction if it appears that a complainant’s rights in the internal appeal process have been paralysed.
The evidence does not reveal circumstances that show that the complainant’s rights were paralysed in the internal appeal process."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3435
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complaints were irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainants assert that they did their utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal appeals procedure and that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, they were allowed to file directly with the Tribunal as the requirement to exhaust all internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralyzing the exercise of their rights. The Tribunal is of the opinion that even though the submission of the Organisation’s position paper was already delayed by the time the complainants
wrote to the IAC Chairman in December 2009, and the additional six months for the expected date of submission could be considered excessive depending on the circumstances, the complainants were involved in a dialogue with the Organisation which they abruptly ended by applying directly to the Tribunal upon receiving notice of the Organisation’s intent to submit its position paper in mid-2010. Having received confirmation of the Organisation’s intent to continue the internal appeal, the complainants should have either waited for the Organisation’s position paper of June to continue the internal appeal process, or should have requested a more immediate submission date. The Tribunal notes that, though the appeal process was delayed, it was active, and the complainants could have a reasonable expectation of receiving a final decision which they could then contest before the Tribunal if they found it necessary. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider that the complainants had truly done their utmost to pursue their internal appeal and the complaints are considered premature and must be dismissed as irreceivable for failure to exhaust all means of internal redress. As they are irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Tribunal shall examine neither other issues of receivability, nor the merits of the complaints."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that this case hinges on the question of receivability. Complainants shall have access to the Tribunal in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal which provides that a “complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. However, the Tribunal notes that it is important for the parties to attempt to find an internal solution to disputes, particularly as internal appeals bodies are competent to comment not only on the lawfulness of administrative decisions, but also to suggest alternative solutions. This alone can sometimes be enough to resolve a dispute, and in cases which are further pursued, the Tribunal should have at its disposal full records on the administrative handling of the dispute. In the present case, the complainants filed their complaints in March 2010 directly before the Tribunal, upon receiving notice that the Organisation’s position paper on their internal appeal would not be filed until mid-2010. The position paper was filed as indicated."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainants’ reliance on the case law established in Judgments 408, 1684, 2132 and 2443, according to which an exception to the rule that internal means of redress must be exhausted can be made if an appeal is not dealt with by the competent bodies within a reasonable period of time, is misplaced. In this connection, the complainants refer to the “incredible delays” with which the Internal Appeals Committee of the EPO usually considers the cases submitted to it, but it must be found that this criticism is irrelevant in the instant cases where the complainants waited for scarcely one or two months following the referral to the Committee before bringing the case directly to the Tribunal. Clearly the fact that their appeals were not examined during this brief interlude could not in any way be described as a breach of the Organisation’s duty to deal with them within a reasonable period of time.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 408, 1684, 2132, 2443
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time;
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]he rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. Thus, the possibility of filing a complaint against an implied decision of rejection is governed solely by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that “[w]hen the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”, the person concerned may have recourse to the Tribunal. Article 109 of the Service Regulations could not therefore apply here. Moreover, that article unlawfully provides for a period of “two months” which is different, albeit only slightly, from the sixty days specified in the Statute. When, before the expiry of the latter time limit, an organisation forwards an appeal to the competent advisory appeal body or takes any other action to deal with it, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal which forestalls an implied rejection that could be challenged before the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 2948 or 3034).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 109 du Statut des fonctionnaires
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute;
Judgment 3427
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[I]t can be seen that the complaint was filed before it was properly before the Administrative Council for consideration.
Clearly the deemed rejection upon which the complainant relies was not engaged in these circumstances and the complaint is irreceivable as the internal means of redress have not been exhausted.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies;
Judgment 3423
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As there was no response to the appeal [...] within sixty days of the date on which it was lodged, pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal it must be deemed to have been implicitly rejected, and that implied decision may be impugned by the complainants before the Tribunal.
In this case, the time limit in question had not actually expired when the complaints were filed with the Tribunal, but given that the aforementioned decision arose in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the complaints, though filed prematurely, may be considered to have been corrected in this respect (for a similar case, see Judgment 3356, under 15 and 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3356
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3409
119th Session, 2015
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal awarded the complainants material and moral damages stemming from IFAD's unlawful decisions and violation of its duty of care.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that the complainants’ claims against the abolition of their posts are irreceivable, in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, for failure to exhaust all internal means of redress. While the complainants submit that they were only later aware of the full damage caused to them by the abolition of their posts, they each should have filed an internal appeal (as IFAD did not authorize them to challenge the issue directly before the Tribunal) challenging the 9 August 2012 decisions insofar as the decisions declared their requests for facilitation concerning the abolition of their posts to be time-barred."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; time bar;
Judgment 3407
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the implied decision to reject his claim against the new calculation of his pension rights.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t must be recalled that the rules governing the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. In particular, the possibility of lodging a complaint against an implied rejection is governed solely by the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that an official may file a complaint “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. When an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent advisory appeal body, this step itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of these provisions, which forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681 or 3034).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3399
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's claims were all irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant did not cure the failure to exhaust her internal remedies by obtaining a waiver from the Director-General to file the challenge directly to the Tribunal pursuant to Staff Rule 111.2(b) (see, for example, Judgment 3190, under 9). The complainant was not entitled to infer the Director-General’s waiver from the absence of a reply to her request (see, for example, Judgment 458, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 458, 3190
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3398
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations. The only exception allowed to this rule is where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant he or she does not have access to the internal appeal body, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure, or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgment 2912, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2912
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3374
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside for procedural flaw the impugned decision rejecting the complainant’s request for the reclassification of his post.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The ILO argues that the complaint is irreceivable on the ground that the complainant, who puts forward arguments “pertain[ing] to an alleged procedural flaw”, could not appeal directly to the Tribunal but should have filed a grievance with the JAAB, as required by the provisions of paragraph 22 of Circular No. 639 (Rev.2), Series 6, of 31 August 2005.
However, the Tribunal considers, without needing to rule on the applicability in the presence case of the aforementioned provisions, that this objection to receivability must be rejected since it has been established, from the content of the file, that the final decision of 29 July 2011 explicitly stated that the complainant could file an appeal with the Tribunal in accordance with its Statute and Rules. This statement must, in any event, be construed as an authorisation to appeal directly to the Tribunal without pursuing any other internal means of redress.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
