Direct appeal to Tribunal (85, 25, 779, 780,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Direct appeal to Tribunal
Total judgments found: 145
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4814
137th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the subject of an investigation into allegations of harassment and abuse of authority, alleges that she received no reply, within the sixty-day time limit, to the claim submitted to the Director-General regarding “multiple conflicts of interest” of the Internal Oversight Service.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that procedural steps taken in the course of a process leading to a final decision cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal, though they may be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against that final decision (see Judgments 4704, consideration 5, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14). In the present case, the refusal to act on the request for the IOS’s divestiture is part of the process leading to a decision resulting from the investigation report (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3958, consideration 15). Accordingly, any alleged irregularities in the investigation could only be raised in the context of a complaint directed against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, provided that she first exhausted the internal remedies available to her, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3958, 3961, 4404, 4704
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; step in the procedure; summary procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Firstly, the Tribunal considers that the complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute is misplaced. It is clear from her submissions that the request made by her counsels in their letter of 1 December 2022 addressed to the Director-General, which had been submitted for the first time on 18 November 2022, had already been considered and explicitly rejected by the DDG on 25 and 29 November 2022. The fact that this request was subsequently escalated to the Director-General does not alter the conclusion that the Administration had already taken a decision on it, thus excluding the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; summary procedure;
Judgment 4813
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of Interpol whose fixed-term appointment was terminated during the probationary period due to unsatisfactory performance, asks the Tribunal to order his reinstatement or to award him compensation.
Considerations 3 & 5
Extract:
It is firmly established in the Tribunal’s case law that, in order to comply with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations, the complainant must follow the available internal appeal procedures (see, for example, Judgments 4634, consideration 2, 3749, consideration 2, and 3296, consideration 10). The case law further states that a staff member of an international organisation cannot of her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4056, consideration 4, 3458, consideration 7, 3190, consideration 9, and 2811, considerations 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).
[…]
In the present case, […] the complainant’s request for review was rejected by a decision of 6 October 2022, which then became the subject of his internal appeal. The complainant filed the present complaint on 15 July 2023, prior to the completion of the [Joint Appeals Committee]’s proceedings and, hence, while his appeal was still pending. Thus, the 6 October 2022 decision is not a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute as the internal means of redress have not been exhausted. The decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment could only be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against the final decision taken by the Secretary General following the delivery of the [Joint Appeals Committee]’s consultative opinion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2811, 3190, 3296, 3458, 3749, 4056, 4634
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; summary procedure;
Judgment 4812
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests moral and material damages for the harm she allegedly suffered as a result of her supervisor’s behaviour and the unduly extended length of time of the investigation.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly provides that “[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 person concerned may have recourse to the Tribunal and her or his complaint shall be receivable in the same manner as a complaint against a final decision”.
In the present case, […] the complainant’s claim to be granted redress for the actions of her supervisor and the time taken to complete the investigation was rejected by a decision of 9 November 2021, which then became the subject of her internal appeal. Thus, although there may have been some delay on the part of the Director-General in taking the final decision on that appeal, she is obviously not in the situation contemplated by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; summary procedure;
Judgment 4775
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to “terminate [her] contract after [her] resignation”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 4
Extract:
While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, allows for direct 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”, this paragraph must be read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article VII. According to 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 redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It follows that the Tribunal cannot hear a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[W]hile a complaint made directly to the Tribunal is indeed usually irreceivable, the case law allows for an exception to be made to that rule where a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust internal remedies has the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. A complainant is thus entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal against the initial decision which she or he intends to challenge where the competent bodies are not able to determine the internal appeal within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, provided that 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 final decision within a reasonable time (see, in particular, Judgments 4271, consideration 5, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, and 1486, consideration 11).
However, the Tribunal considers that, as the complainant rightly submits, the conditions allowing this jurisprudential exception to be applied are satisfied in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 3558, 4200, 4271
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 4651
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4650
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4649
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4648
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4647
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4632
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied rejections of his requests for decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s request did not proceed on the premise that there had been a final decision on the disciplinary case brought against him. Rather it was to terminate prematurely (the complainant would say appropriately) the disciplinary proceedings. This was only a step in the process and the complainant has no cause of action to challenge its rejection even if only implicitly. Accordingly, his two complaints are irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; direct appeal to tribunal; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4621
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her short-term appointment and complains that she was not able to exercise her right to an effective internal appeal in its regard.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; non-renewal of contract; right of appeal;
Judgment 4620
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance assessment and complains that she was not able to exercise her right to an effective internal appeal in its regard.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; performance evaluation; rating; right of appeal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in, for example, Judgments 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. Moreover, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of 60 days to the competent authority, that step in itself constitutes a decision on the claim (see, on these points, Judgments 3956, 3034, 2681, 786, 762 and 532). However, it is also clear from the case law that when an organisation merely acknowledges receipt of a claim addressed to it, that will not amount to a decision on the claim for the purposes of Article VII, paragraph 3 (see Judgment 533, consideration 3).
In this case, as may be seen in the email of 11 February 2020, the Organization merely acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s email of 4 February without taking any action whatsoever to deal with that appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 533, 762, 786, 2681, 3034, 3956, 3975, 4174
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 4517
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks restoration of her entitlements to healthcare and health insurance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, must be read in the light of paragraph 1 of that article and are not applicable unless, as required under paragraph 1, the official concerned has first exhausted the internal remedies available to her or him (see, in particular, Judgment 185 and Judgment 2631, considerations 3 to 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185, 2631
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4494
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that UNESCO failed to take a decision within sixty days on his claim.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, for example, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. Moreover, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent authority, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of this provision (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034 and 3956). In the present case, it is obvious that the complainant’s claim has been addressed by the Assistant Director-General and forwarded to the competent services.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034, 3956, 3975, 4174
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4470
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns Eurocontrol’s decision to stop payment, as from 1 August 2016, of the education allowance and the dependent child allowance which he was receiving in respect of his daughter.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal fails to see how the timeframe within which the Joint Committee for Disputes met and issued its opinion of itself renders that opinion and the subsequent decision unlawful. Although Article 4 of [...] Office Notice No. 06/11 of 7 March 2011 provides that the Committee should “preferably” give a reasoned opinion within “sixty days subsequent to the receipt of the request for an opinion”, this requirement is not absolute and failure to comply with this timeframe only means that the Director General of Eurocontrol may take his or her decision without receiving the Committee’s opinion. Similarly, the second subparagraph of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency provides, first, that the Director General is to notify the person concerned of her or his reasoned decision “within four months from the date on which the [internal] complaint was lodged” and, second, that “[i]f at the end of that period no reply to the complaint has been received, this shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which an appeal may be lodged [with the Tribunal]”. Furthermore, the fact that over one year passed before an express decision was adopted on the complainant’s internal complaint, even if that delay is considered unreasonable, cannot, of itself, have adversely affected his right of effective appeal to the Tribunal: first, he successfully filed this complaint and his entitlements would be fully restored if the Tribunal were to allow it; second, under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, if he had wished, he could have filed a complaint against Eurocontrol’s implicit decision earlier on account of the failure to reply to the internal complaint that he lodged on 18 October 2016.
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay in internal procedure; direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 4334
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implicit decision rejecting her appeal against the decision to modify her terms of assignment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; time bar;
Judgment 4319
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the designation of his reporting and countersigning officers for a staff report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, is misplaced because his “claim” of 30 January 2014 did not, in fact, remain unanswered during the 60-day period provided for in that provision. It was rejected on 20 February 2014. It is clear from the case law (see Judgment 3714, considerations 6 and 7, for example) that Article VII, paragraph 3, is applicable where the Administration does not respond to an initial claim within that period. It does not apply to situations where the Administration does respond to the claim within 60 days.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3714
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; implied rejection of internal appeal;
Judgment 4271
129th Session, 2020
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the delivery of Judgment 4006, the complainant re-submitted to the new Registrar of the ICC a harassment grievance on the part of the former Registrar. He filed his complaint directly with the Tribunal, considering that he did not receive a final decision on his grievance within the prescribed time limit.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
In filing his complaint with the Tribunal, the complainant relies on Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. He considers that as he did not receive a final decision within sixty days of the date on which the DAB’s report was submitted to the Registrar, he is entitled to proceed directly to the Tribunal, by filing a complaint within the following ninety-day period.
This approach is mistaken. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, for example, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. Moreover, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent authority, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of this provision (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034 and 3956). In the present case, it is obvious that the complainant’s grievance has been examined in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005. His complaint therefore cannot be considered receivable under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034, 3956, 3975, 4174
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
If the competent authority is not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances, an official can indeed file a complaint directly with the Tribunal, but 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 competent authority was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 3558, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 4270
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, former officials of the World Food Programme whose employment was terminated as a result of the abolition of their posts, allege that they performed functions of a higher level than those of the posts they occupied, and claim compensation as well as reinstatement.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants are not impugning an express administrative decision concerning them. Instead, they rely on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which 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”. However, the same paragraph sets forth a deadline for filing a complaint with the Tribunal. Once the sixty-day period allowed for the taking of the decision by the Administration has expired, the complaint must be filed within the following ninety days. As the Tribunal clarified in Judgments 456 and 2901,
“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 [her or his] 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 [her or his] 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, 2901
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; late filing;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
