Delay (111,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delay
Total judgments found: 185
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 5180
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s invalidity reforms.
Consideration 22
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that moral damages are awarded for moral injury, and the complainant bears the burden of proving the injury and the causal link with the unlawful conduct of the defendant organization. Delay, in itself, does not entitle a complainant to moral damages […], unless the complainant proves the injury suffered as a consequence of the delay. In the present case, the complainant has not established to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that the moral injury he suffered is not covered by the 300 euros already awarded by the Office."
Keywords:
delay; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 5179
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request to access his complete medical file and contests the validity of the internal appeals proceedings.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[R]egarding the claim for moral damages for delay, in an amount higher than that already awarded by the EPO, the Tribunal observes that moral damages are awarded for moral injury, and the complainant bears the burden of proving the injury and the causal link with the unlawful conduct of the defendant organization. Delay, by itself, does not entitle a complainant to moral damages […], unless the complainant proves the injury suffered as a consequence of the delay."
Keywords:
delay; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 5158
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO official who was dismissed for serious misconduct, impugns what he considers to be an implied decision to reject his appeal against the termination of his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
“Under the Tribunal’s case law, an argument based on an inordinate and inexcusable delay may not be accepted 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 where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances, that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal. A complainant can make use of this possibility only where she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal proceedings and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see Judgments 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, or 3558, consideration 9).
The fact that the Organization did not respect a time limit set out in its own rules does not mean that the internal proceedings were necessarily paralysed (see Judgment 3889, consideration 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558, 3889, 4200, 4268
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 38
Extract:
“The complainant also requests moral compensation for the delay in the process, arguing that the overall duration of the investigation and disciplinary proceedings was excessively long. She contends that she was left in a state of complete uncertainty about her career for roughly 30 months, during which time she was suspended from service. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and, specifically, its complexity and the number of witnesses interviewed, the Tribunal finds that the length of the process was not inordinate and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to moral damages in this regard.”
Keywords:
delay; disciplinary procedure; investigation; moral damages; suspension;
Judgment 5152
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of the measures taken following the Organization’s acknowledgment of the violation of its duty of care towards him and asks that it be ordered to publish a press release to clear his reputation and to pay him additional amounts in moral damages and legal “fees”.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal agrees with the complainant that the five-month duration of the WHO/IOS preliminary review was excessive and unreasonable, and that the Organization did not investigate promptly the allegations against him. The allegations made were serious; they related to alleged sexual harassment and depicted the complainant as a sexual predator and skirt chaser. By the time the preliminary review was requested from WHO/IOS […], the matter had become public […]. Clearly, time was of the essence, and it was urgent to proceed rapidly, in the interests of both justice in general and the interests of the complainant in particular. The Organization’s duty of care towards him required that the preliminary review proceed without delay. […]. Five months to complete a preliminary review in a matter such as the instant one was unacceptable. […]. The Tribunal finds the answers offered in this regard by the Organization unconvincing. The fact that there was no formal complaint made, that [the accuser] was not a staff member, and therefore not subject to internal rules, or that she could not be compelled to accept to be interviewed are insufficient to relieve the Organization from abiding with its well-recognized duty of care towards its officials in circumstances such as the present.
Keywords:
delay; duty of care; investigation;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 9
Extract:
“Although the Tribunal’s case law emphasizes that investigations into cases of harassment should be prompt and thorough to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering (see Judgments 4954, consideration 8, and 4253, consideration 3), the length of the procedure may be justified, on a case-by-case basis, by the complexity of the case and the number of witnesses interviewed (see Judgment 4954, consideration 8). In the present case, considering the myriad issues raised by the complainant in his harassment complaint, the number of witnesses interviewed, the volume of documents collected, the one-year duration of the investigation cannot be considered excessive.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4253, 4954
Keywords:
delay; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 5149
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue him with a written reprimand.
Consideration 11
Extract:
“In the normal course of events, the Tribunal would remit the case to the FAO for the Appeals Committee to issue a fresh opinion. The Tribunal will do so in this case. The Tribunal will also order the FAO to remove the written reprimand from the complainant’s personnel file pending the final resolution of the matter. Whatever the outcome of the present dispute, the effect of the failure to properly examine the complainant’s internal appeal was to delay its final settlement. In the circumstances of the case, that failure has in itself caused the complainant moral injury which will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay him compensation of 3,000 United States dollars.”
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; delay; internal appeal; moral damages; moral injury; right of appeal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
“The complainant’s claim for moral damages for excessive delay in the internal appeal procedure is rejected. Even assuming that there was excessive delay, he has not provided evidence to establish the moral injury he suffered as a result of it […].”
Keywords:
delay; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 5145
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim that his injury was service-incurred.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the finding in the impugned decision that there was no undue delay is reasonable. The time taken resulted from the nature and complexity of the claim, the numerous procedural steps involved, and the extensive documentation the complainant provided on a continuous basis throughout the process. Even during the appeal process, the complainant submitted information after the pleadings before the Appeals Committee were closed, which delayed the Appeals Committee’s consideration of his case."
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 5136
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his application for the Voluntary Departure Programme.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for moral damages for delay in the internal appeal procedure is unfounded, as notwithstanding that it lasted some 20 months, the complainant has not articulated to the Tribunal’s satisfaction, the effects the delay had on him to justify such an award.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 5123
141st Session, 2026
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 25(b)
Extract:
«S’agissant de la durée des procédures de recours interne, il convient de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, les fonctionnaires ont droit à voir leurs recours examinés par les organes compétents avec la diligence requise et qu’un manquement à cette exigence de célérité de traitement constitue une faute à la charge de l’organisation dont ils relèvent (voir, par exemple, les jugements 5057, au considérant 20, 4727, au considérant 14, ou 3510, au considérant 24). En l’espèce, il s’est écoulé, entre le dépôt de la requête détaillée du requérant relative au rejet de sa demande de reclassement […] et l’intervention de la décision de la Directrice générale statuant sur son recours […] une durée de trois ans et deux mois. Quant à la procédure de recours concernant la nouvelle description d’emploi, elle s’est pour sa part étalée, du dépôt de la requête détaillée […] à l’adoption de la décision finale […] sur une durée de trois ans et cinq mois. De tels délais de traitement présentent un caractère manifestement excessif. La défenderesse fait certes valoir, à cet égard, que le fonctionnement du Conseil d’appel et des services de l’UNESCO eux-mêmes a été considérablement perturbé, en 2020 et 2021, par la pandémie de Covid-19 et que les procédures internes afférentes aux différents recours du requérant avaient par ailleurs été suspendues pendant trois mois, en 2023, en raison de pourparlers visant à un règlement amiable des litiges opposant les parties. Mais le Tribunal estime que, eu égard à la chronologie de l’affaire, ces circonstances ne suffisent pas, en l’occurrence, à justifier la totalité du retard ayant affecté le traitement des deux recours en cause. Le requérant est donc en droit de prétendre à l’indemnisation du tort moral qui lui a ainsi été occasionné. »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3510, 4727, 5057
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Consideration 23
Extract:
“[T]he complainant’s submission on this issue is not that this allegedly unjustified unreasonable delay entails that the dismissal decision or the impugned decision are unlawful as a result, but rather that it justifies that he be granted moral damages. As recalled in Judgment 4947, consideration 17, established precedents of the Tribunal indeed have it that “an unreasonable delay does not in itself render the decision taken at the end of the internal procedure in question unlawful […]”.
[…] While an international organization clearly has the obligation to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deal with internal procedures in a timely manner, the record easily establishes that the processing of the disciplinary proceedings in the present case took some time due to its magnitude and complexity. […]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4947
Keywords:
delay; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 5058
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour harcèlement à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que les fonctionnaires ont droit à voir leurs recours examinés avec la diligence requise au regard, notamment, de la nature de la décision qu’ils entendent contester (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4660, au considérant 24, 4457, au considérant 29, ou 4063, au considérant 14).
[I]l convient de constater qu’il s’est écoulé, entre l’introduction de l’avis d’appel du requérant […] et la notification de la décision de la Directrice générale […] ayant statué sur son recours, une durée de moins d’un an et que cette durée comprend, du reste, celle de près de trois mois correspondant à l’attente de la production par l’intéressé de sa requête détaillée. Eu égard au délai statutaire de 90 jours dont dispose l’administration, à compter de la communication d’une telle requête, pour déposer sa réponse, le Conseil n’a ainsi été en possession d’un dossier complet que […] soit cinq mois et trois semaines avant l’achèvement de la procédure d’appel. Dans ces conditions, le Tribunal estime que, même en prenant en considération l’exigence d’une particulière célérité de traitement des recours relatifs aux plaintes pour harcèlement, la durée de cette procédure ne saurait être regardée comme déraisonnable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4457, 4660
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 5057
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour représailles à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que les fonctionnaires ont droit à voir leurs recours examinés avec la diligence requise au regard, notamment, de la nature de la décision qu’ils entendent contester (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4660, au considérant 24, 4457, au considérant 29, ou 4063, au considérant 14).
En l’espèce, il s’est écoulé, entre l’introduction de l’avis d’appel du requérant […] et la notification de la décision de la Directrice générale […] ayant statué sur son recours, une durée de près de dix-huit mois. Même si cette durée s’explique, à concurrence de trois mois, par le fait que l’intéressé n’a soumis sa requête détaillée au Conseil d’appel que [tardivement], un tel délai de traitement présente un caractère excessif eu égard à la nature de l’affaire. Compte tenu des lourds enjeux qui s’y attachent pour les fonctionnaires concernés, les recours relatifs à des plaintes pour représailles doivent en effet normalement être traités – à l’instar de ceux concernant des plaintes pour harcèlement – avec une particulière célérité.
Le Tribunal estime que le retard ainsi observé dans le déroulement de la procédure, dont la défenderesse ne fournit aucune justification pertinente, a causé au requérant un tort moral qu’il y a lieu d’indemniser.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4457, 4660
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury; retaliation;
Judgment 5034
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019, ainsi que les décisions subséquentes de «geler» son avancement d’échelon et de la soumettre à un plan d’amélioration des performances, de même que le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Consideration 19
Extract:
La requérante se plaint enfin du délai, anormalement long selon elle, qui a été mis par Eurocontrol pour traiter son recours interne.
Contrairement à ce que fait valoir l’intéressée, un délai excessif de traitement de sa réclamation n’implique pas en soi l’annulation de la décision finale qui a été prise en la matière.
Cependant, le Tribunal rappelle que le défaut d’examen des recours par les organes compétents dans un délai raisonnable constitue un manquement à l’exigence de célérité de traitement des recours internes. Le montant de la réparation susceptible d’être accordée à ce titre dépend notamment, en principe, de deux facteurs essentiels, qui sont, d’une part, la durée du retard constaté et, d’autre part, les conséquences de ce retard pour le fonctionnaire intéressé (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4962, au considérant 22, 4727, au considérant 14, 4635, au considérant 8, 4178, au considérant 15, et 4100, au considérant 7).
En l’espèce, le Tribunal constate qu’il s’est écoulé un délai de près de deux ans et deux mois entre l’introduction de la réclamation […] et l’intervention de la décision finale du Directeur général […]. Un tel délai est excessif et a été de nature à occasionner à la requérante un préjudice moral […]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100, 4178, 4635, 4727, 4962
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 5032
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de limiter dans le temps le remboursement de sommes déduites du montant des allocations familiales versées par l’Organisation au titre de sommes perçues d’un régime de protection sociale national.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, les délais de recours, qui courent, en règle générale, à compter de la notification de la décision contestée, ont un caractère objectif et leur observation rigoureuse est nécessaire pour garantir la stabilité des situations juridiques […]. Comme le Tribunal l’a notamment rappelé dans le jugement 4910, au considérant 5, il n’est fait exception à cette règle de l’observation rigoureuse des délais que dans certains cas très limités. Il en est ainsi «lorsque le requérant a été empêché, pour des raisons de force majeure, de prendre connaissance de l’acte litigieux en temps voulu», «lorsque l’organisation, en induisant l’intéressé en erreur ou en lui cachant un document dans l’intention de lui nuire, l’a privé de la possibilité d’exercer son droit de recours en violation du principe de bonne foi» […], «lorsqu’une circonstance nouvelle imprévisible et décisive est survenue depuis que la décision a été rendue», ou encore «lorsque [le fonctionnaire concerné par la décision] invoque des faits ou des moyens de preuve déterminants qu’il ne connaissait pas ni ne pouvait connaître avant l’adoption de cette décision» […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4910
Keywords:
delay; exception; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 5026
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct with one month’s notice and the payment of an indemnity, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; delay; disciplinary measure; due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report; investigative body;
Consideration 19
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that in the instant case, WHO clearly took an excessive and unreasonable amount of time to initiate, perform and conclude the investigation, in violation of its own statutory requirements and in disregard of its general duty not to cause its staff members undue hardship.
This excessive delay was much more than a mere procedural flaw under the circumstances. It adversely impacted the complainant’s right to a full answer and defence, and it prejudiced the integrity of the investigation. Most of the evidence was difficult to obtain as a result, and the record indicates that it indeed led IOS to eventually give up on collecting it. By the time he was informed of the investigation, some three years after the alleged incident, it was too late for the complainant to find additional evidence or identify other potential witnesses. This ended up breaching the complainant’s right to due process.
Keywords:
delay; due process; investigation; investigation report; investigative body;
Judgment 5023
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel.
Consideration 27
Extract:
S’agissant […] de la durée de la procédure de recours interne, […] il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que les fonctionnaires ont droit à voir leurs recours examinés avec la diligence requise en tenant compte, notamment, de la nature de la décision qu’ils entendent contester (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4922, au considérant 22, 4660, au considérant 24, 4457, au considérant 29, ou 4063, au considérant 14). En outre, le caractère déraisonnable du délai d’examen d’un recours interne doit être apprécié à la lumière des circonstances propres à chaque affaire et le montant de la réparation susceptible d’être accordée à ce titre dépend normalement de deux facteurs, à savoir la durée du délai et les conséquences de celui-ci pour le fonctionnaire concerné (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4844, au considérant 11, 4727, au considérant 14, 4684, au considérant 12, 4635, au considérant 8, 4173, au considérant 12, ou 3160, au considérant 17).
En l’espèce, le délai qui s’est écoulé entre l’introduction du recours interne […] et la prise de la décision attaquée […] est excessif, en particulier eu égard à la nature des décisions contestées, qui portent sur une plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel. Bien que le Tribunal ait souligné, dans le jugement 5018 précité, que ce délai s’inscrit dans un contexte particulier et exceptionnel où la requérante a successivement introduit cinq recours internes découlant de la même suite d’événements, ce qui a entraîné de longs échanges d’écritures qui se sont terminés en mars 2020, ainsi qu’une analyse de la part de la Commission mixte de recours qui s’est échelonnée sur quelques semaines, et que ces écritures révèlent un antagonisme particulièrement acrimonieux entre les parties qui n’a sans doute pas été de nature à favoriser un traitement efficace et rapide des affaires, il n’en demeure pas moins que, dans le jugement 4922, au considérant 22, le Tribunal a rappelé qu’il a, de manière constante, mis l’accent sur la nécessité de traiter avec une particulière célérité les recours relatifs aux plaintes pour harcèlement (voir également les jugements 5058, au considérant 19, 4663, au considérant 19, et 4243, au considérant 24).
Dans ces circonstances, la requérante est fondée à soutenir qu’elle a subi un préjudice moral supplémentaire du fait de la durée excessive de la procédure de recours interne […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4063, 4173, 4243, 4457, 4635, 4660, 4663, 4684, 4727, 4844, 4922, 5018, 5058
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; institutional harassment;
Judgment 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]n the absence of a specific deadline, the issue of whether the length of the proceedings should be characterized as excessive, might be relevant only to the question of whether the complainant is entitled to moral damages for undue delay. The complainant has not demonstrated that he suffered moral injury and, thus, he fails to establish the foundation for moral damages […].
Keywords:
delay; disciplinary procedure; investigation; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 5000
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the “deemed rejection” of his request for an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the Assistant Director-General at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva; the determination by the Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics that he had not suffered retaliation, and that he was not entitled to protection against retaliation; and WHO’s decision to accept his resignation which he claims constitutes constructive dismissal.
Consideration 28
Extract:
[T]he complainant also contends a breach of the Organization’s duty of care during the internal appeal process, which was not concluded within the statutory time limit of sixty calendar days from the GBA’s opinion. The GBA report was issued on 20 April 2022 and the final decision was adopted on 9 December 2022, that is with a six-month delay. However, the Tribunal notes that time limits of this kind are plainly not intended to have the effect of nullifying a decision taken after their expiry. Non-observance of time limits does not therefore render such decisions unlawful and, where that non-observance is wrongful, it may only entitle the staff members concerned to compensation if it causes injury to them (see, for example, Judgments 4584, consideration 4, 4408, considerations 5 and 6, and 2885, consideration 14). Having regard to the complexity, sensitivity, and the circumstances of the case, the six-month delay was not inordinate, did not amount to a breach of the Organization’s duty of care, and does not justify the award of moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2885, 4408, 4584
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4954
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law emphasizes that investigations into cases of harassment in particular should be prompt and thorough, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see, for example, Judgment 4253, consideration 3). The complainant argues that the length of the investigation, over nine months, constituted an excessive delay. Given the complexity of the case and the fact that 14 witnesses were interviewed, the nine-month period to complete the harassment investigation in the present case is not considered inordinate or excessive delay.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4253
Keywords:
delay; harassment; investigation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
