|
|
 |
|
|
Internal procedure (668,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal procedure
Total judgments found: 47
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5166
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 cancel the promotion exercise for 2020.
Considerations 4, 5 and 8
Extract:
« [L]e fait de ne pas communiquer aux fonctionnaires les documents produits par une organisation devant l’organe de recours interne constitue une violation du principe du contradictoire. En effet, les fonctionnaires doivent avoir connaissance, fût-ce sous une forme expurgée pour des motifs de confidentialité, des éléments pertinents sur lesquels vont être prises les décisions les concernant […].
[S]’il peut être admis dans certains cas que le défaut de communication d’une pièce soit corrigé ultérieurement, y compris pendant la procédure devant le Tribunal, […], une telle régularisation ne saurait être admise lorsque le document en question revêt, comme c’est le cas en l’espèce, une importance essentielle au regard de l’objet du litige […].
De même, la circonstance que ces documents auraient pu être consultés par le requérant sur le site intranet de l’Organisation ne pallie pas le fait que ceux-ci n’aient pas été communiqués au cours de la procédure de recours interne.
[…]
[L]e vice de procédure censuré ci-dessus justifie l’octroi d’une indemnisation du tort moral causé au requérant par l’atteinte portée à son droit de recours. Le Tribunal estime qu’il sera fait une juste réparation de ce tort en allouant à l’intéressé une indemnité de 2 000 euros. »
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; duty to inform; internal procedure; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 5162
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Administration’s refusal to recognise the overtime she worked in June and July 2020 during the Covid-19 sanitary crisis and seeks to have her entitlements restored for the five years preceding the filing of her complaint pursuant to French law.
Consideration 8
Extract:
«[E]n ne transmettant pas aux fonctionnaires les documents produits devant l’organe de recours interne, les organisations ne respect[ent] pas le principe du contradictoire, car les fonctionnaires doivent avoir connaissance, fût-ce sous une forme expurgée pour des motifs de confidentialité, des éléments pertinents sur lesquels vont être prises les décisions les concernant (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 5034, au considérant 18, 4961, au considérant 14, 3380, considérant 12, 3264, au considérant 15, 2899, au considérant 23, et 2700, au considérant 6). Il importe peu à cet égard que l’avis donné par les membres de la Commission ait été unanimement favorable à la requérante, dès lors que les éléments qui ont été invoqués par ces membres – que la défenderesse conteste – auraient pu se révéler encore plus déterminants si l’intéressée s’était vu offrir l’occasion de répondre à l’Organisation avant que les membres de la Commission ne rendent leur avis (voir, en ce sens, le jugement 4820, au considérant 12). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264, 3380, 4820, 4961, 5034
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; 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.
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 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 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 23
Extract:
“The complainant requests an award of moral damages of 50,000 euros for the delay in the procedure and for the fundamental breach of his right to a fair internal appeal procedure. […] [T]his claim […] is […] well founded to the extent it is grounded on the infringement of the complainant’s right to a fair internal appeal. […] The error of law committed by the JAAB regarding the scope of its competence resulted in the complainant being denied his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly examined by that body. Consequently, the complainant’s right to an effective appeal was breached, which caused him, in the circumstances of the case, a manifest moral injury warranting redress. The Tribunal finds it fair to award him moral compensation in the sum of 5,000 euros.”
Keywords:
internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury; right of appeal;
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 5035
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de rejet de ses demandes de remboursement spécial des frais de garde-malade de son épouse.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[L]e requérant est fondé à soutenir, comme il le fait par ailleurs, que la procédure de recours interne relative à la décision contestée dans sa deuxième requête n’a pas été menée avec la diligence requise. Il s’est en effet écoulé, entre le dépôt de sa réclamation […] et la notification de la décision statuant sur celle-ci […] un délai de près de huit mois, dont le Tribunal relève qu’il s’explique pour moitié par le fait que la chef de l’Unité des ressources humaines et services a tardé, sans raison pertinente, à se prononcer sur la réclamation après la remise de l’avis du CGRAM. Si un tel délai n’est certes pas déraisonnable dans l’absolu, il n’en apparaît pas moins excessif dans les circonstances particulières de l’espèce, où l’âge avancé du requérant – 77 ans au moment des faits – et la charge financière très élevée que représentaient pour lui les frais en litige commandaient que l’Organisation s’attache à traiter son recours avec davantage de célérité.
En outre, l’intéressé est également fondé à soutenir que l’absence de toute réponse apportée par Eurocontrol à la demande de remboursement spécial qu’il avait présentée […] témoigne, eu égard à ces mêmes circonstances particulières, d’un manquement de l’Organisation au devoir de sollicitude qui lui incombait à son égard.
[I]l sera fait une juste réparation du préjudice moral occasionné par les décisions attaquées en condamnant Eurocontrol au paiement, à ce titre, d’une indemnité de 3 000 euros.
Keywords:
duty of care; internal procedure; moral injury;
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;
Consideration 18
Extract:
Le Tribunal a toutefois déjà considéré à de multiples reprises qu’en ne transmettant pas aux fonctionnaires les documents produits devant l’organe de recours interne, les organisations ne respectaient pas le principe du contradictoire, car les fonctionnaires doivent avoir connaissance, fût-ce sous une forme expurgée pour des motifs de confidentialité, des éléments pertinents sur lesquels vont être prises les décisions les concernant (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4961, au considérant 13, 3380, au considérant 12, 3264, au considérant 15, 2899, au considérant 23, et 2700, au considérant 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264, 3380, 4961
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; internal procedure;
Judgment 4886
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the deferral of his application for clearance to carry a service weapon.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant requests that UNESCO be ordered to pay him damages for the excessive delay in the internal appeal procedure.
As an exception to what has just been stated, this claim must be examined because international civil servants are, as a matter of principle, entitled to expect that their case will be dealt with by the internal appeal bodies within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 3510, consideration 24, or 2116, consideration 11). A failure to comply with this need for expeditious proceedings, where wrongful, warrants compensation, the amount of which, under the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
In this case, the delay of nearly four years between the submission of the first internal appeal to the Appeals Board on 3 April 2018 and the adoption of the final decision of 14 March 2022 is, in absolute terms, clearly excessive.
However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that the complainant, who asked the Appeals Board three times to extend the time limit for filing his submissions, for a total period of nine months, himself caused some of the delay in the procedure, and, moreover, it may seem reasonable, in view of the extensions obtained by the complainant, that they were also granted to the Organization. Moreover, the Organization explains, convincingly in the Tribunal’s view, that the functioning of the Appeals Board was considerably disrupted, in 2020 and 2021, by the successive lockdowns ordered by the French authorities owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, which, in particular, affected the Board’s capacity to hold its hearings as usual. Lastly, it must be pointed out that, given the abandonment of the process of arming security officers following the delivery of the IOS report of October 2018, the complainant’s internal appeals had become moot shortly after their filing, with the result that the procedural delay was not liable to cause him substantial moral injury (see, in this connection, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, and 4635, consideration 8).
This being so, the Tribunal considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there is no reason to order UNESCO to pay compensation to the complainant under that head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635, 4727
Keywords:
burden of proof; delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Consideration 2
Extract:
With regard, firstly, to the failure to comply with various time limits during the internal appeals procedure, [...] the Tribunal, while regretting that the Organization does not adhere more closely to the time limits that it has itself established, notes that time limits of this kind are not intended to have the effect of nullifying a decision taken after their expiry. It follows that their non-observance does nottherefore render such decisions unlawful and, where that non-observance is wrongful, it may only entitle the staff member concerned to compensation if it causes actual injury to her or him, which it therefore falls to the staff member concerned to establish (see Judgment 4584, consideration 4). Moreover, the Tribunal has also stated that if the failure of appeal bodies to examine appeals within a reasonable time constitutes a failure to comply with the requirement that internal appeals be processed expeditiously and, consequently, a failing on the part of the organization concerned, nonetheless, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, and 4100, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100, 4178, 4584, 4635, 4727
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[The complainant is] (relying on consideration 15 of Judgment 2786) to the effect that it was not open to the Federation to justify a decision by conducting further enquiries after the internal appeal proceedings have been concluded since it breached the right to be heard and renders the appeal proceedings futile […] [T]he Tribunal’s statement in consideration 15 of Judgment 2786 is not applicable to the case at hand since, contrary to the facts underlying Judgment 2786, the scope of the investigation of the present case did not change.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
internal procedure; investigation;
Consideration 21
Extract:
As a result of the procedural flaw in the Appeals Commission’s process, the Tribunal will remit the matter to the Federation for a new consideration of the complainant’s internal appeal by a newly composed Appeals Commission.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal; internal procedure;
Considerations 18-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the investigation and disciplinary procedure at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Considerations 13-17
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the selection procedures at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious […] that the Commission interviewed these Federation staff on various issues which touched and concerned “the circumstances in which the offer was rescinded”. This tends to demonstrate that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature, and that it was relating specifically to the rescission of the offer of employment at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 12-15
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] While the Appeals Commission’s report is almost silent about the content of those interviews, its statement that “[…]” tends to demonstrate that the interviews were not about the Federation’s budgetary framework but about the specific situation of the complainant and the decision not to extend his contract. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4780
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.
Consideration 8
Extract:
As the complainant did not address a request for reconsideration of the initial decision […], in accordance with Staff Rule 11.1.2, she has not exhausted internal remedies. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable, according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, and must be dismissed.
Keywords:
internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted; review of administrative decision;
Judgment 4775
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to “terminate [her] contract after [her] resignation”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 8
Extract:
FAO Manual paragraph 331.4, entitled ‘Appeals by Former Staff Members’, provides that former staff members shall have access to the appeals procedure. FAO Manual paragraph 331.4.1 specifically states that “[f]ormer staff members [...] may lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this Manual Section subject to Manual [paragraphs] 331.4.2 and 331.4.3”.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4760
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to establish a medical board to examine the percentage of her permanent loss of function.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, must be read in the light of paragraph 1 of that Article and are not applicable where the official concerned can use internal remedies, in which case these must be exhausted, as required under paragraph 1, before a complaint may be filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, considerations 3 to 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4664
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the recognition that there was an unreasonable delay does not in itself render the decision taken at the end of the procedure unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 4584, consideration 4, 4408, considerations 5 and 6, or 2885, consideration 14).
As regards the injury that may have been caused to the staff member by that delay, the Tribunal takes into account two considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the staff member concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4493, consideration 6, 4229, consideration 5, and 4031, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2885, 4031, 4229, 4408, 4493, 4584
Keywords:
internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] notes that the redacted investigation report was not sent to the complainant until after the JAB had made a recommendation to that effect in its report [...].
[...]
In those circumstances, [...] the fact that the complainant did not receive the investigation report until she was informed of the President’s final decision resulted in her being deprived of the opportunity to challenge the findings of the investigation effectively during the appeal proceedings before the JAB.
[T]he Tribunal must conclude that the procedure followed before the JAB was also unlawful in that the JAB was not provided with all the evidence which would have enabled it to give a fully informed decision on the internal appeal before it (see, to that effect, Judgment 1372, consideration 11). In consequence, the complainant was deprived of the right to have her internal appeal properly examined (on the obligation of any international organisation to ensure that the rules are correctly applied and due process followed, see, inter alia, Judgments 2219, 2654, 2700 and 3065).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1372, 2219, 2654, 2700, 3065
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; inquiry; internal procedure; report;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
