Direct appeal to Tribunal (85, 25, 779, 780,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Direct appeal to Tribunal
Total judgments found: 145
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 2975
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment / Non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment as a result of restructuring.
"The case law allows that where the Administration has failed to take a decision 'within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', as provided for by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and the staff member has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time and a decision is not received, he or she may proceed directly before the Tribunal without waiting for a final decision (see Judgment 2631, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2948
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the [Tribunal's] Statute permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal '[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', 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 these provisions, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2939
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the internal means of redress have been exhausted. Although the Statute does not expressly allow for any exception to this requirement, the Tribunal's case law is clear that 'where the pursuit of the internal remedies is unreasonably delayed the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, will have been met if, though doing everything that can be expected to get the matter concluded, the complainant can show that the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time' [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1829, 2039
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the [Tribunal's]Statute, '[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 exceptions allowed under the Tribunal's case law to this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted are cases where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in 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 or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, for example, Judgments 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511 and the case law cited therein, and 2582)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511, 2582
Keywords:
absence of final decision; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2901
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As the Tribunal had occasion to explain in Judgment 456, under 2, the purpose of [the] provisions [of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute] is twofold. Their first aim is to enable an official to defend his or her interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administration has failed to take a decision. Their second aim is to prevent a dispute from dragging on indefinitely, which would undermine the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations. It follows from these twin purposes that, if the Administration fails to take a decision on a claim within sixty days, the person submitting it not only can, but must refer the matter to the Tribunal within the following ninety days, i.e. within 150 days of his or her claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 456
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"[T]he claim [...] that the performance appraisal made by the Secretary-General "be quashed and removed from his personal file" is receivable. It is not clear whether any performance appraisal report has been placed in the complainant's file. But it is clear that the relevant performance appraisal procedures were never completed. In these circumstances, it will be ordered that any performance appraisal report for the year 2006 that has been placed in his file be removed from it."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; status of complainant;
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
"The ITU argues that the [...] complaint with respect to the complainant's dismissal is [...] irreceivable on the basis that, as he has not pursued his internal appeal following his request [...] for a final review of the decision to dismiss him [...]. [T]he question remains whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules permit an internal appeal once a person has ceased to be a staff member. If they do not, the steps taken by the complainant to initiate an internal appeal were ineffective. More to the point, there were no internal remedies that he could pursue before lodging his complaint."
"Chapter XI of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules makes provision for appeals by staff members. [...] There is nothing in Chapter XI of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to indicate that a former staff member may lodge an appeal as therein provided. [...] In these circumstances, the term "staff member" in Chapter XI is to be construed as restricted to a serving staff member."
"In Judgment 2840, also a case where the relevant regulations and rules relating to internal appeals referred only to a "staff member" and not a "former staff member", it was held that "where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process". The same is true of a staff member who has either been summarily dismissed or dismissed with such short notice that it is impracticable to commence internal appeal proceedings before the dismissal takes effect."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582, 2840
Keywords:
definition; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; official; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2866
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4 and 5
Extract:
The complainant challenged the Organisation's decision not to grant her the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 (1) of the Service Regulations. The Tribunal held that she had failed to adduce cogent evidence that she fulfilled the requirements for the granting of the said allowance.
"The EPO argues that although it was outside the time contemplated in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations, a decision on the complainant's appeal was taken by the President and the appeal was forwarded to the Internal Appeals Committee prior to the complaint being filed. Accordingly, there was no longer an implicit rejection of the complainant's appeal and Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute does not apply. In its view, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 533, under 5, the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that the internal means of redress have not been exhausted."
"The EPO's reliance on Judgment 533 is misplaced. In the present case, by the EPO's own admission the decision was not taken within the time provided in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2562, under 6:
"The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...]"
Accordingly, the complaint is receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 533, 2562
Keywords:
administrative delay; direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2853
107th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The difference as to the complainant's performance rating was not resolved in internal grievance proceedings and the complainant filed an internal appeal. Having received no response, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Registry of the Tribunal, stating that he wished to file a complaint.
"It is fundamental that a litigant cannot pursue the same claim before different adjudicative bodies at the same time. Normally, the litigant will be forced to elect the forum in which he or she intends to proceed. That did not happen in the present case. Nonetheless, the complainant pursued his internal appeal to finality and, thus, must be taken to have elected to pursue internal remedies rather than to proceed at that stage before the Tribunal on the basis of an implied rejection of his internal appeal. However, that does not mean that the complaint is irreceivable."
"[When] the complainant [decided] to pursue internal remedies [...], [his] complaint had already been filed and it was receivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute. Moreover, he then had a cause of action, as his claim was not satisfied until 13 December 2007."
"Even though the complaint became without object on 13 December 2007, it was receivable when filed and the complainant then had a cause of action. Accordingly, he is entitled, in these circumstances, to the costs associated with its filing, even though not requested in the complaint. However, he is not entitled to costs in respect of subsequent pleadings which were filed after his decision to pursue his internal appeal. There will be an award of costs in the amount of 500 Swiss francs, but the complaint must otherwise be dismissed."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; costs; direct appeal to tribunal; duplication of proceedings; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2844
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The case law allows that, where it appears that a final decision will not be made within a reasonable time, a staff member may file a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 1968, under 5, and 2170, under 9 and 16). By the time the complainant filed her complaint, four months had elapsed since she had been informed that the Headquarters Board of Appeal had finalised its report. At that stage, it did not appear that a decision would be taken within a reasonable time, and, indeed, it was not."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1986, 2170
Keywords:
amount; decision; deduction; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 2820
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"As the FAO raised the question of the applicability of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, for the sake of completeness the Tribunal makes the following observation. Article VII, paragraph 3, provides that if the Administration fails to take a decision within sixty days of the notification of a claim, the official may have recourse to the Tribunal and the complaint is receivable in the same manner as a complaint taken against a final decision. In Judgment 2784, under 6, the Tribunal held that paragraph 3 only applies to an anticipated final decision. In the present case, it is clear that no final decision could be anticipated until the complainant submitted his appeal to the Appeals Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2784
Keywords:
decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2811
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"In an attempt to show that her complaint is receivable the complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal to the Board of Appeal or Grievance Panel would not have served any practical purpose [...].
The Tribunal will not accept this line of argument, since to do so would be tantamount to allowing a staff member, on his or her own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed.
Apart from the fact that this solution would conflict directly with the terms of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it would belie the actual point of making internal appeals obligatory, which is what justifies this provision. However, as the Tribunal has already emphasised, [...] the purpose of the requirement that internal means of redress be exhausted is not only to ensure that staff members do actually avail themselves of any opportunities they may have within an organisation for obtaining redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal, but also to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a staff member lodges a complaint, to have at its disposal a file supplemented by information from the records of the internal appeal procedure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. Relying on various Tribunal judgments where complainants were deemed to have exhausted internal means of redress when it transpired that the latter would be inconclusive, she contends that she was likewise in a situation where she was entitled to turn directly to the Tribunal.
"The complainant is mistaken in believing that she may be deemed in this case to have exhausted internal means of redress. The precedents to which she refers [...] refer to cases where, owing to the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings, or the organisation's wrongful attempts to impede the examination of such an appeal, the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted would have paralysed the complainant's exercise of his or her right to have access to the Tribunal. However, as a general rule, and according to the same line of precedent, this departure from the application of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal will be accepted only where complainants have done all that could reasonably be expected of them to have their internal appeal effectively examined, so that they cannot be said to be in any way responsible for a failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available within an organisation. But, this is not the case here where, on the contrary, the complainant quite simply refrained from filing such an appeal and therefore took it upon herself not to comply with this precondition for filing a complaint with the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 1829, 1968, 2039
Keywords:
complaint; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2740
105th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The letter of 29 August 2006 must be deemed to constitute an explicit decision to refuse to rule on the request submitted by the complainant [...]. Such a decision may be brought before the Tribunal only after the means of redress open to the complainant have been exhausted (Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute)." The complainant did not exhaust all internal means of redress. "Consequently, the complaint would, in the normal course of events, be irreceivable. [...] In the present case, however, such an approach would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, in view of the content of the letter of 29 August 2006, by which UNESCO notified the complainant of its refusal to take a decision, the complainant had good grounds to consider that any internal appeal would have proved a hollow and meaningless formality. [...] The complainant was therefore entitled to have direct recourse to the Tribunal, after rightly concluding that the letter of 29 August 2006 contained an implicit waiver of the requirement that she first exhaust internal means of redress. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
condition; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2631
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Under Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have direct recourse to the Tribunal where the Administration fails to take a decision on any claim “within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. Only a person who has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time, but to no avail, is entitled to file a complaint against an implicit rejection (see, inter alia, Judgments 1344, under 11, and 1718, under 3).
Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute must be read in conjunction with Article VII(1), which establishes the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It follows that a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies. The Tribunal cannot therefore hear such a complaint unless the implicit rejection may be inferred from the silence of the final authority competent to rule on the dispute between the official and the Administration (see Judgment 185)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2626
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(c)
Extract:
"Generally speaking, serving or retired staff members who turn to an internal appeal body are entitled to have their case heard within a reasonable period of time without having to endure excessive and unjustified delays resulting from the malfunctioning of that body, or from the inadequate resources at its disposal. This duty to take prompt action is reinforced where the dispute is such that it must be resolved rapidly if resolution is to serve any purpose. [...] Contrary to the defendant's view, the complainant therefore had good reason to consider that the lack of a decision within a reasonable time amounted to an implied decision of rejection which he was entitled to challenge before the Tribunal (see Judgments 499 and 791, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499, 791
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; competence of tribunal; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; reasonable time; retirement; right;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;
Judgment 2345
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1(c)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2304
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246
Keywords:
application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2300
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"A general decision which establishes the obligations and/or rights of a group of officials, without requiring an implementing decision, may be directly challenged; one example of this would be a decision concerning an electronic clocking-in system (see Judgment 2279 [...]). However, such a decision is not challengeable if its terms are not sufficiently clear in themselves to allow a challenge (see Judgment 2258, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2258, 2279
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; general decision; individual decision; official; staff member's duties; working hours;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability because the matter was not referred to the Appeals Council. "In the present case, that procedure was not and clearly could not have been followed. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the Director-General, stripped of his functions, could have appealed to the Appeals Council established under his own authority, against a decision of the Conference of the States parties, with a view to obtaining a final decision by the new Director-General. [...] An appeal to the Appeals Council was inconceivable, and the impugned decision was clearly a final decision - within the meaning of Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute [...] in that situation, a direct appeal to the Tribunal [...] was clearly the only remedy available to the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; competence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; member state; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment;
Judgment 2216
95th Session, 2003
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Article VI 1.01 of ESO's International Staff Rules reads as follows: " 'Every member of the personnel shall have the right to appeal against any decision of the Director General concerning himself.' Thus, a person who is not a "member of the personnel" has no right to launch an internal appeal and his or her only recourse is directly to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VI 1.01 OF ESO'S INTERNATIONAL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; general principle; internal appeal; official; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
