|
|
 |
|
|
Reasonable time (115,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reasonable time
Total judgments found: 75
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4947
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to reject his requests for the suspension of action on the decision to suspend him with pay and with immediate effect, and on the decisions to extend that measure, pending the outcome of the internal appeal procedures.
Consideration 17
Extract:
S’agissant enfin de l’argument, soulevé par le requérant dans le cadre de sa cinquième requête, selon lequel le délai de la procédure de recours interne serait, dans ce cas, déraisonnable, le Tribunal observe que le paragraphe c) de la règle 111.4 du Règlement du personnel prévoit que, « dès réception de [la] demande », la Commission de recours doit « examine[r] la question dans les plus brefs délais ». Ainsi que le souligne à juste titre le requérant, il est clair que cette formulation, de même que la nature de la demande de suspension concernée, impliquent que la Commission doit traiter de telles demandes avec célérité. […]
Le Tribunal estime que ce délai de plus de cinq mois, dans les circonstances propres à une telle demande d’effet suspensif présentée sur le fondement de la règle 111.4 du Règlement du personnel était déraisonnable. Bien que la Commission de recours soit un organe indépendant du Bureau du Procureur de la CPI, il n’en reste pas moins que c’est l’organisation qui a la responsabilité de s’assurer que la procédure de recours interne se déroule dans un délai raisonnable et qui doit assumer, le cas échéant, les conséquences d’un manquement à cette obligation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4284, au considérant 8, 2768, au considérant 6 a), 2522, au considérant 7, et 2196, au considérant 9).
Cependant, le Tribunal rappelle que l’écoulement d’un délai déraisonnable n’implique pas en soi l’illégalité de la décision prise à l’issue de la procédure interne concernée (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4666, au considérant 11, 4664, au considérant 9, et 4584, au considérant 4). Ces jugements, qui s’inscrivent dans la suite d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal à ce sujet, rappellent également que le droit du fonctionnaire à la réparation d’un préjudice subi en raison d’un délai déraisonnable doit prendre en considération deux facteurs, à savoir la durée du retard et les conséquences de celui-ci pour le fonctionnaire intéressé.
Or, en l’espèce, si le Tribunal est convaincu, comme il a été dit, que la durée du délai d’examen du recours interne du requérant a été dans ce cas objectivement déraisonnable, force est de constater que ce dernier n’indique pas en quoi ce délai serait la source d’un préjudice particulier, qu’il quantifie à hauteur de 3 000 euros, dans un contexte où, quelle que soit la durée du traitement du recours interne de l’intéressé, il s’agissait d’une situation où les conditions d’application de la règle 111.4 n’étaient, de toute façon, pas remplies. Puisque le Tribunal considère que le délai ne peut ainsi avoir eu un impact significatif déterminant qui justifierait en soi l’octroi d’une réparation, la réclamation du requérant à cet égard doit être rejetée.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2196, 2522, 2768, 4284, 4584, 4664, 4666
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; reasonable time;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Insofar as the complaint is directed against the decision of the Director General to dismiss the complainant’s first complaint for moral harassment against Mr P.H. as unfounded, the Tribunal notes the following:
(a) Where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent internal appeal body for example, 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 referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3715, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
(b) Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant should have filed a complaint before the Tribunal within 90 days from the expiry of the four-month time limit for the Administration to respond to his internal complaint, even if the matter had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes. The present complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable as time-barred under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, combined with Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(c) However, in this case, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was misled by the Organisation when it indicated to him that, since his internal complaint had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes, he had, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law on the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, to await the final decision of the Director General before being able to file a complaint with the Tribunal. By so doing, the Organisation overlooked the fact that, pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, failure by the Director General to respond to an internal complaint within four months from the date on which it was lodged shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, which may be impugned before the Tribunal. There is no need to declare the complaint irreceivable as time-barred, insofar as it is directed against an implied decision to reject from the Director General. To rule otherwise would amount to unduly depriving the complainant of his right to refer the matter to the Tribunal solely due to the conduct of the Organisation.
(d) The Tribunal observes that, while the complainant’s failure to comply with the 90-day time limit to file a complaint with the Tribunal is recognized above as admissible due to the fact that he was wrongly informed by the Organisation that he had to await an express decision, the complainant did not wait for this decision to be issued before filing his complaint. The complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, in this case, taking into account the period of one year and seven months that had elapsed between 5 June 2020, when the complainant filed his internal complaint, and 7 February 2022, when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, and the fact that his counsel had followed up, to no avail, with the Director General, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was faced with a paralysis of the internal appeal procedure that would allow him to proceed directly to it. Under the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant is 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, for example, Judgments 4660, consideration 2, 4271, consideration 5, 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, or 1486, consideration 11).
(e) In addition, the Tribunal notes that a final decision was ultimately taken by the Director General on 12 May 2022, as was the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes relating thereto, and that that decision was issued in the course of proceedings. Since the Tribunal has the complete dossier in its possession and the parties have had the opportunity to comment fully in their written submissions on the express decision to reject the complainant’s internal complaint of 5 June 2020, and thus on the decision to reject the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., it considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the internal complaint as being directed against the latter decision of 12 May 2022 (see in particular, for similar cases, Judgments 4769, consideration 3, 4768, consideration 3, 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
The present complaint is, accordingly, receivable insofar as it challenges the lawfulness of the Director General’s decision of 12 May 2022 to reject, as unfounded, the first moral harassment complaint directed against Mr P.H. It will therefore be examined from this standpoint by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 4657
136th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed applications for interpretation and for review of Judgment 4074.
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
[T]here is a threshold issue to be addressed, namely whether the application for review is receivable having regard to the time taken after Judgment 4074 was delivered to file the application for review. Receivability is a matter that can be raised by the Tribunal ex officio. In Judgment 1952, consideration 3, the Tribunal said that an application for review should be filed within a reasonable time. To similar effect are Judgments 3982 and 2219. In the first-mentioned of these latter cases, the period was patently unreasonable and the application was dismissed as irreceivable (and also baseless on the merits).
In this case the application for review was filed over 20 months after Judgment 4074 was delivered in public. The amounts payable under the judgment were paid, the Tribunal infers from correspondence in evidence, sometime shortly before 3 April 2019.
The Tribunal invited the applicant and the Global Fund to make submissions on the question of receivability. The central issue is whether 20 months is a reasonable time. The Global Fund effectively said it would abide by the Tribunal’s decision. The complainant’s submissions were made on 2 March 2023. He recounts that in early April 2019 he began the process of trying to obtain documents from the Global Fund he apparently hoped to use in any application for review. He had some very limited success but was mainly unsuccessful. By July 2019 it would have been apparent to the complainant that the prospect of obtaining the documents then being sought was negligible. He could have then filed the application for review. But he persisted into 2020 in making requests through channels he had not hitherto followed. The complainant made a confidential submission concerning his personal circumstances from February 2020 until September 2020. The import of this submission was that the focus of his time and energy were those personal circumstances and the making of the application for review was “forgotten”. But even accepting this is correct it does not account for a delay of approximately a year from the time the judgment was made public until these personal circumstances began to unfold. The complainant could have applied for a review, but did not in this period. Even discounting the total time following February 2020, the time taken to file the application for review was unreasonable. It is thus irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952, 2219, 3982, 4074
Keywords:
application for review; reasonable time;
Judgment 4207
129th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes that the IAEA could have and should have given the complainant a decision regarding her complaint of harassment within a reasonable time following the completion of the investigation [...]. Rather than reacting promptly in relation to the complainant’s claim of harassment, the Administration held this claim in abeyance pending the completion of the Appendix G procedure and a determination as to whether misconduct was committed. The fact that the Appendix G procedures were still ongoing did not in any way preclude the IAEA from responding to the complainant’s claim of harassment.
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; reasonable time; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4037
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, officials are entitled to expect that their case will be dealt with by the internal appeal body within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 3336, under 6). In this case, the Tribunal considers that while the complainant was partly responsible for the delay of which she complains insofar as she had requested and obtained a two-month extension of the time limit for submitting her rejoinder, the internal proceedings lasted an excessively long time having regard to the nature of the case. Their length caused the complainant moral injury, entitling her to damages [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3336
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 4031
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the step level he was placed in upon implementation of a new local salary scale for General Service staff in New Delhi, India.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submits that he suffered injury as a consequence of the “inordinate, inexplicable and inexcusable” delay in the internal appeal process. He seeks moral damages on this account. The Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows in Judgment 3160, consideration 17:
“The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; moral injury; patere legem; reasonable time;
Judgment 3939
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant [complains] that [...] the Organization took more than three months to reply to his request for an extension of his appointment. [...]
It is true that the Organization was nevertheless bound to reply to this request within a reasonable period of time. However, while it would have been preferable in this case that a decision was taken sooner, UNESCO cannot be deemed to have disregarded this requirement, as the decision containing the reply was taken one month before the complainant reached the statutory retirement age and he does not contend that it was adopted too late for him to make adequate arrangements for his private life after he had attained the normal retirement age.
Keywords:
age limit; extension beyond retirement age; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 3510
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the excessive length of the process of obtaining a visa for his wife’s adopted daughter.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; duty of care; reasonable time; visa;
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;
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.
Consideration 17
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has consistently held, an organisation has an obligation to ensure that internal appeal procedures move forward with reasonable speed (see, for example, Judgment 2197, under 33)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
due process; reasonable time;
Judgment 3302
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints were dismissed for non-exhaustion of internal remedies under Article 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2780, 2811, 2939
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; decision; delay; duty of care; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3294
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to refuse to reclassify one of her former posts.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; reasonable time; right to reply;
Judgment 3200
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Although the case was complex and detailed, and the subject matter sensitive, the time taken to complete the proceedings was indeed excessive. The Tribunal notes in particular that it took OSDI ten months to bring the investigation to a conclusion following the interviews, and it took the Director General seven months to reject the appeal after receiving the Appeals Committee Report. The total length of the proceedings cannot therefore be considered reasonable, and specifically, the two intervals of time noted above were excessive. The conclusion is that the Organization did not respect the need for expeditious proceedings and violated its duty of care towards the complainant."
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 25
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly observed, internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see for example Judgment 2522, under 7). While the time an appeal might reasonably take will often depend on the particular circumstances of a given case, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902, under 16, that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3168
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the characterization of his service during a certain period and the date taken into account by WHO to determine his entry on duty within the United Nations system.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is firm Tribunal case law that a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgments 2904, under 14 and 15, 2851, under 10, and 2116, under 11). It can be seen from the above summary of the internal appeal process that there were a number of requests for extensions of time by both parties and in some instances consented to by the opposing party. While the departure of a staff member responsible for an appeal is beyond the control of the Administration, the latter does bear the responsibility of providing adequate staffing in keeping with its obligation to provide an efficient means of internal redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2851, 2904
Keywords:
administrative delay; decision; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"As to the compensation for the delay, it is well established that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). Furthermore, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902 that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”. The time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the particular circumstances. The Director-General recognised that the time taken in this case, a little over two years, was excessive and awarded moral damages. As noted earlier, both the complainant and UNIDO dispute the quantum of damages awarded by the Director-General for delay.
The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
compensation; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3130
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
Keywords:
administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 3119
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Where the staff regulations of an international organisation do not enable former staff members to avail themselves of the internal means of redress, the organisation cannot legally decide to terminate an appointment without giving the person concerned sufficient time to lodge an internal appeal, otherwise he would be deprived of his right to such an appeal."
Keywords:
condition; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment;
Judgment 3114
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
A year and a half passed following the recommendations before a final decision was reached, and that decision was obtained only after the complainant had lodged an application for execution with the Tribunal. "This delay is manifestly unreasonable. The complainant will be awarded an indemnity, which it is fair to set at 2,000 euros, for the moral injury she has thus been caused."
Keywords:
administrative delay; allowance; application for execution; compensation; decision; internal appeals body; moral injury; reasonable time; recommendation;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
