|
|
 |
|
|
Failure to exhaust internal remedies (656,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Failure to exhaust internal remedies
Total judgments found: 74
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 5195
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of his application to stand for election to the Staff Committee.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal relève que l’origine du préjudice ainsi allégué se trouve en réalité dans la décision du Président de l’Office du 28 juin 2017 refusant la demande de l’intéressé de prolonger son service au-delà de l’âge de la retraite – décision qui est au demeurant devenue définitive pour défaut d’épuisement des voies de recours interne – et non dans la décision attaquée.
En l’absence de lien de causalité entre l’illégalité de la décision attaquée et le préjudice matériel ainsi invoqué, cette demande ne peut qu’être rejetée.
Keywords:
causal link; failure to exhaust internal remedies; material injury;
Judgment 5194
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred in national criminal proceedings.
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
“The EPO raises a number of preliminary issues concerning the complaint. It is only necessary to address one, namely the failure of the complainant to lodge an internal appeal […]. The relevance of this arises because of Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute. It is not in issue that no internal appeal was lodged. At least in the ordinary case, that failure would render irreceivable a subsequent complaint because the complainant had not exhausted the internal means of redress, as provided in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. However, the complainant seeks to avoid this consequence of his failure to lodge an internal appeal because of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute. That provision operates in circumstances “[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 question that then arises is whether there was such a failure. […]
[I]t is necessary to assess whether the 27 April 2017 decision constitutes a “decision upon [those] claim[s]” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3975, consideration 5, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that the expression “decision upon any claim” in Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute comprehends “any action [taken by the Administration] to deal with a claim” (see, for example, Judgment 4820, consideration 6(a), and the case law cited therein). Plainly, in this case, the decision of the Administrative Council […] was action by the Administration to deal with the claim for reimbursement of costs. […] Accordingly, Article VII, paragraph 3, had no application and the complainant was not absolved from the requirement that he exhaust the internal means of redress arising from Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which would have included lodging an internal appeal against the implied rejection of his request for review […].
[…] As the complainant failed to lodge an internal appeal, he has not exhausted the internal remedies available to him as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. In the result, his complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428, 3975, 4820
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 5169
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[C]omme il a d’ailleurs déjà été dit au regard de comportements similaires d’Eurocontrol dans le cadre de situations semblables, le Tribunal considère que la requérante a été induite en erreur par l’Organisation lorsque cette dernière lui a indiqué que, en raison de la transmission de sa réclamation à la Commission paritaire des litiges, elle devait, conformément à la jurisprudence du Tribunal relative à l’application de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, de son Statut, attendre la décision définitive du Directeur général avant de pouvoir saisir le Tribunal. Ce faisant, l’Organisation a en effet omis de tenir compte de ce que, en application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le défaut de réponse du Directeur général à une réclamation dans un délai de quatre mois à partir du jour de l’introduction de celle-ci vaut par ailleurs lui-même décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal (voir à ce sujet, par exemple, les jugements 4820, au considérant 6, et 4819, au considérant 3).
Il n’y a donc pas lieu de déclarer la requête irrecevable pour tardiveté en ce qu’elle a été déposée alors qu’elle ne pouvait être dirigée que contre une décision de rejet implicite de la réclamation de la requérante. Statuer en sens contraire reviendrait en effet à priver indûment l’intéressée de son droit de saisir le Tribunal en raison du seul comportement de l’Organisation.
En outre, compte tenu du délai de près de deux ans qui s’était écoulé entre l’introduction de la réclamation de la requérante, le 20 octobre 2020, et le dépôt de sa requête, le 8 septembre 2022, et du fait qu’elle avait procédé, en vain, à des relances auprès du Directeur général et du président de la Commission paritaire des litiges, le Tribunal considère que l’intéressée était confrontée à une paralysie de la procédure de recours interne lui permettant de saisir directement le Tribunal (voir notamment, pour des cas de figure analogues impliquant Eurocontrol, les jugements 5034, aux considérants 3 et 4, 4820, au considérant 3, et 4819, au considérant 3).
Le Tribunal observe du reste que l’Organisation est plutôt malvenue de reprocher à la requérante de ne pas avoir épuisé les voies de recours interne alors que c’est elle-même qui a enfreint les dispositions de son propre Statut administratif en ne traitant pas le recours formé par l’intéressée dans les délais prescrits et avec diligence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4819, 4820, 5034
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; paralyzed internal procedure;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; summary procedure;
Judgment 5135
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her request that the Director, Human Resources Management, recuse himself from any involvement in her appeals due to an alleged conflict of interest; the decision to maintain the composition of the Joint Administrative Review Board panel constituted to review her internal appeals; and the decision to reject her request for direct appeal to the Tribunal.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Staff Rule 11.3.1 read:
“A staff member may, in agreement with the Director General, appeal directly to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation without first following the procedures provided for in Staff Regulations 11.1 and 11.2 and Staff Rules 11.1.1 and 11.2.1, in accordance with the provisions of the Statute and Rules of Procedure of that Tribunal.”
In the present case, the complainant requested authorization to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal, but this request was rejected by the competent authority. Furthermore, she has failed to establish before the Tribunal that she was otherwise exempted from the obligation to exhaust internal remedies (see Judgment 4661, consideration 2). Conversely, there is evidence on record that the complainant’s claims were promptly and thoroughly addressed by the Director General and the Chief of Staff. There was no implied rejection that might have justified the complainant’s direct challenge before the Tribunal.
Consequently, the complainant has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress available to her and lacked authorization to bypass them."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4661
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; waiver of internal appeal procedure;
Judgment 5121
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her claim for additional compensation in connection with the passing of her husband.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“The OPCW […] correctly submits that the complainant’s internal appeal was also irreceivable as she lodged it more than one month after the complainant was notified of the 9 April 2021 letter. […] Having not complied with the applicable internal time limits, the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of redress as were open to her under the applicable Staff Rules, as Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires. In this regard, the Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the strict observance of applicable time limits when challenging an administrative decision (see, for example, Judgments 4823, consideration 7, 4673, consideration 12, 4184, consideration 4, and 4103, consideration 1).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4103, 4184, 4673, 4823
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 5112
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In the same vein, it was stated in Judgment 1469, consideration 16, that to satisfy the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, that internal means of redress must be exhausted, the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal, but she or he must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1469
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
It has also been stated 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 lodging a complaint with the Tribunal. Accordingly, the following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3458, consideration 7:
“It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgments 3190, under 9, and 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2811, 3190, 3458
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
There are limited exceptions to the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1. The following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3714, consideration 12:
“The Tribunal has established through its case law that exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute that internal remedies be exhausted will be made only in very limited circumstances, namely where staff regulations provide that the decision in question is not such as to be subject to the internal appeal procedure; where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body; where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure; or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgments 2912, consideration 6, 3397, consideration 1, and 3505, consideration 1). Moreover, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the above conditions are satisfied [...].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2912, 3397, 3505, 3714
Keywords:
exception; failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Also, in Judgment 3829, consideration 7, the Tribunal relevantly said:
“[T]ime limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may not have discovered the irregularity on which she or he purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3663, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law, as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 3406 for example, allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation, by deliberately misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from her or him, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406, 3663, 3829
Keywords:
exception; failure to exhaust internal remedies; good faith; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[I]n the first place, the Staff Committee is not an Energy Charter Conference body whose advice to the complainant on this issue fixes the Organization with responsibility for the advice it proffered to the complainant. In the second place, the complainant’s submission to the effect that the General Counsel and the Chair of the Advisory Board misled him regarding the steps he should have taken and provide exceptional circumstances that prevented the application of the stipulated time limits is unmeritorious. This is in light of the fact that when he sought their advice, the stipulated time limits had already passed.
Keywords:
exception; failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that for a complaint to be receivable, a complainant must exhaust the internal means of redress, and to do so she or he must comply with the time limits and the procedures set out in an organization’s internal rules and regulations, and that there are very limited exceptions from the requirement that she or he must comply with Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute. Accordingly, the Tribunal stated the following in consideration 4 of Judgment 3947:
“Regarding Article VII, paragraph 1, consistent principle has it that a complainant must comply with the time limits and the procedures, as set out in the organisation’s internal rules and regulations. The following was stated, for example, in Judgment 1653, consideration 6:
‘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’. So where the staff regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the regulations or implementing rules.’”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1653, 3947
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal holds that any arguments and claims by the complainant concerning the 28 April 2021 decision to close his harassment complaint are irreceivable as time-barred. The 28 April 2021 decision was final and challengeable before the Tribunal within ninety calendar days, consistent with Articles 12.2. and 12.3. of the Staff Regulations and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. Additionally, the 28 April 2021 decision expressly informed the complainant of the available judicial remedy and its associated time limit. The complainant failed to challenge this decision before the Tribunal within the prescribed deadline.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 5086
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his election as an alternate member, rather than as a full member, of the Central Staff Committee.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly states that a complaint will not be receivable by the Tribunal 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 Tribunal has established through its case law that exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, will be made only in very limited circumstances, namely “where staff regulations provide that the decision in question is not such as to be subject to the internal appeal procedure; where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body; where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure; or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted” […].
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
In seeking to justify bypassing the internal appeals procedure, the complainant states, in effect, that the IAC was not properly constituted […] He therefore argues that it should be assumed that all lawful internal means of redress were already exhausted since he no longer had access to any internal means of redress before a legitimately constituted body whose authority he challenged. The reasons put forward by the complainant to justify the fact that he has not filed an internal appeal do not constitute one of the limited exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute recalled in consideration 4 and are not acceptable. Moreover, the case law 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 […].
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5081
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to increase the employee pension contribution rate.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal will address, ex officio, a threshold issue related to the receivability of this complaint (see Judgments 4764, consideration 2, and 4597, consideration 8). Under 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 redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant cannot be treated as having exhausted the internal means of redress available unless the internal appeal was filed in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4973, consideration 3, 4929, consideration 4, 4573, consideration 3, and 4103, consideration 1). Therefore, “the fact that an internal appeal is lodged by a complainant out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable [...]” (see Judgment 4830, consideration 7). Moreover, it is immaterial in this regard that an internal appeals body wrongly entertained an internal appeal that was time-barred (see Judgments 4780, consideration 7, 3754, consideration 12, 3351, consideration 17, 3330, consideration 2, and 2675, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2675, 3330, 3351, 3754, 4103, 4573, 4597, 4764, 4780, 4830, 4929, 4973
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 5077
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the suspension of the final decision on his invalidity and the referral of his case to a Medical Committee for a second opinion, and the decision to cancel his medical examination and the session of the second Medical Committee planned on 26 March 2015.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Pursuant 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”.
[I]t is manifest from [the decision's] wording […] that it was not a final decision within the meaning of the Statute of the Tribunal. The President of the Office expressly stated that the final decision was suspended and that a further medical examination was required before the final decision could be taken. In Judgment 3560, considerations 1 to 4, the Tribunal held that an authority’s decision to suspend her or his decision as regards the relevant administrative consequences related to a possible recognition of invalidity and to request a further medical examination is not a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute; such a decision, in substance and in form, postponed the taking of the final decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3560
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5027
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to “terminate” her appointment.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
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”. The Tribunal has consistently held that, on the basis of these provisions, where the staff regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal, it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the regulations or implementing rules (see, for example, Judgments 4929, consideration 4, 3947, consideration 4, 3027, consideration 6, and 1653, consideration 6). 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 4634, consideration 2, 4056, consideration 4, 3458, consideration 7, 3190, consideration 9, and 2811, considerations 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).
[…] As the internal appeal procedure was ongoing, the complainant could not bring her complaint directly before the Tribunal without waiting for the outcome of that procedure.
Contrary to what the complainant seems to consider, the Tribunal does not have, in any event, the power to suspend the execution of a contested administrative decision during the internal appeal proceedings, nor does it have the power to allow a complainant to evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint with it. A fortiori, its President does not have such powers either.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1653, 2811, 3027, 3190, 3458, 3947, 4056, 4634, 4929
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5014
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request to be reassigned to a different team, and consequently to a different reporting line, as well as her request for a new assessment of her position.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegations of bullying and harassment, […] [t]he complainant has not filed a grievance through the internal procedures, justifying the Appeal Board’s finding of irreceivability of the harassment allegations.
Pursuant 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 is firmly established in the case law that, in order to comply with that provision, the complainant must follow the available internal appeal procedures properly (see, for example, Judgments 4571, consideration 3, 3749, consideration 2, and 3296, consideration 10). Consequently, the complainant’s claims of institutional harassment and correction of her position title and grade were irreceivable due to the failure to exhaust internal remedies.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296, 3749, 4571
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies;
Judgment 4984
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Consideration 8
Extract:
As the complainant failed to raise an objection with the Committee to contest his 2017 appraisal report, as this provision, as well as Section B(12) of Circular No. 366, Articles 110a(5) and 113(2) of the Service Regulations required, this complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies;
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The scope of the present complaint is only the assessment of the lawfulness of the impugned decision and of the disciplinary decision. The Tribunal will obviously assess whether they might amount, by themselves, to acts of harassment. However, the Tribunal cannot address the facts and decisions already dealt with in Judgments 4608, 4478, 4288, 4287, and 4002, which dismissed the complainant’s claims. Indeed, in accordance with a recognised general principle of law, a person cannot submit the same matter for decision in two separate proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 4778, consideration 5, 4530, consideration 7, 4085, consideration 7, 3291, consideration 6, and 2742, consideration 16). Nor can the Tribunal address alleged further acts of harassment which the complainant has never reported internally, or which were reported and adjudicated internally but were not appealed and then challenged before the Tribunal, for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress (see Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute). The complainant insists that episodes of harassment already adjudicated should be addressed by the Tribunal in the present complaint, as he was, allegedly, a victim of a “miscarriage of justice”. The Tribunal considers that this allegation is merely speculative and unproven. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes, to the extent that the complainant calls into question its earlier rulings, that the complainant had the possibility to file an application for review under Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, but did not pursue it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3291, 4002, 4085, 4287, 4478, 4530, 4608, 4778
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; harassment;
Judgment 4955
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject, on grounds of irreceivability, his compensation claims for what he considers to be a service-incurred illness.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[On 22 February 2021, the complainant filed the present complaint before the Tribunal, being directed against what he considers to be an implied decision of rejection of his counsel’s letter of 21 December 2020.] It is clear from the contents of the 31 July 2019 letter from the complainant and of the 22 December 2020 letter from his counsel that both communications constituted requests that the same 16 July 2019 decision be reviewed. Even if the complainant’s 31 July 2019 request to “reverse the [16 July 2019] decision” were to be regarded as having been made and dealt with under Articles 40 and 41 of Appendix D, the evidence shows that, at the time of the 22 December 2020 letter, and when he filed his complaint before the Tribunal, the complainant had already been issued on 2 December 2020 with a decision on his request for reconsideration of the 16 July 2019 decision, thus providing him with a final decision on his compensation claims pursuant to Article 42 of Appendix D. […] [P]ursuant to Staff Rule 12.02.1(D), the 2 December 2020 decision is the decision that the complainant, being a former staff member at the time when it was taken, should have impugned before the Tribunal within the ninety-day time limit prescribed by its Statute. He did not do so. It follows that the aspects of the complaint involving the complainant’s 26 June 2019 compensation claims made under Appendix D are irreceivable.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 5
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4830, consideration 6, 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742, 4830
Keywords:
compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4940
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 6
Extract:
En tant que, dans sa lettre du 21 mars 2021, le requérant a entendu contester la décision de ne pas renouveler son contrat d’engagement, prise le 25 juin 2020, il y a lieu de faire application de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal et de déclarer la requête irrecevable sur ce point, du fait que l’intéressé n’a pas épuisé, dans les délais requis et selon les formes imposées, «tous moyens de recours» mis à sa disposition par le Statut du personnel de l’OEACP (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4759, au considérant 5, 4634, au considérant 2, 3749, au considérant 2, et 3296, au considérant 10). En effet, si le requérant affirme, certes, avoir introduit une réclamation en temps utile, il n’en apporte pas la preuve, tandis que la lettre qui aurait été adressée au Secrétaire général par l’Association du personnel le 3 juillet 2020 ne peut être considérée comme constituant une réclamation au sens des dispositions du Statut du personnel.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296, 3749, 4634, 4759
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; late filing;
Judgment 4939
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 6
Extract:
En tant que, dans sa lettre du 21 mars 2021, le requérant a entendu contester la décision de ne pas renouveler son contrat d’engagement prise le 25 juin 2020, il y a lieu de faire application de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal et de déclarer la requête irrecevable sur ce point, du fait que l’intéressé n’a pas épuisé, dans les délais requis et selon les formes imposées, «tous moyens de recours» mis à sa disposition par le Statut du personnel de l’OEACP (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4759, au considérant 5, 4634, au considérant 2, 3749, au considérant 2, et 3296, au considérant 10). En effet, si le requérant affirme, certes, avoir introduit une réclamation en temps utile, il n’en apporte pas la preuve, tandis que la lettre qui aurait été adressée au Secrétaire général par l’Association du personnel le 3 juillet 2020 ne peut être considérée comme constituant une réclamation au sens des dispositions du Statut du personnel.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296, 3749, 4634, 4759
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; late filing;
Judgment 4938
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 6
Extract:
En tant que, dans sa lettre du 9 février 2021, le requérant a entendu contester la décision de ne pas renouveler son contrat d’engagement prise le 25 juin 2020, il y a lieu de faire application de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal et de déclarer la requête irrecevable sur ce point, du fait que l’intéressé n’a pas épuisé, dans les délais requis et selon les formes imposées, «tous moyens de recours» mis à sa disposition par le Statut du personnel de l’OEACP (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4759, au considérant 5, 4634, au considérant 2, 3749, au considérant 2, et 3296, au considérant 10). En effet, si le requérant affirme, certes, avoir introduit une réclamation en temps utile par l’envoi de son mémorandum du 3 juillet 2020, il n’en reste pas moins que, en l’absence de «réponse satisfaisante» du Secrétaire général dans un délai de trente jours civils, il lui incombait de saisir le Président du Comité des ambassadeurs en application du paragraphe 3 de l’annexe VIII au Statut, précitée. Le requérant s’étant abstenu de procéder de la sorte, il n’a donc pas dûment épuisé les voies de recours interne qui lui étaient ouvertes.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296, 3749, 4634, 4759
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; late filing;
Judgment 4929
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her protest against the closure of her case of moral and institutional harassment.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
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”. The Tribunal has consistently held that, on the basis of these provisions, where the staff regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal, it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the regulations or implementing rules (see, for example, Judgments 3947, consideration 4, 3027, consideration 6, and 1653, consideration 6). 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 4634, consideration 2, 4056, consideration 4, 3458, consideration 7, 3190, consideration 9, and 2811, considerations 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).
[…] As the complainant lodged an appeal directly with the Appeals Board without first addressing a protest to the Director-General against the 22 January 2019 decision – when, according to her own statement, she was perfectly aware that she normally had to go through this stage – she has failed to exhaust all internal means of redress and the present complaint is therefore clearly irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1653, 2811, 3027, 3190, 3458, 3947, 4056, 4634
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; summary procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
