Internal appeals body (79, 80, 81, 84, 822, 823, 90, 91, 742, 785, 786, 813, 82, 973, 819,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 323
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
Judgment 5188
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a Board of Appeal member, challenges his transposition to a new grade, with effect from 1 January 2017, as a result of the introduction of a new career regime.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Contrairement à ce que soutient l’intéressé, rien n’indique que l’argumentation qu’il avait présentée à l’appui de cette demande n’ait pas été prise en considération dans son ensemble et ni le fait que la décision en question ait traité de façon globale des demandes de plusieurs fonctionnaires, ni la circonstance qu’il y ait été répondu, en conséquence, à un grief qu’il n’avait pas lui-même soulevé, ne sauraient caractériser une violation du principe de bonne foi de nature à entacher cette décision d’irrégularité."
Keywords:
good faith; internal appeals body; motivation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"En ce qui concerne l’avis de la Commission de recours, dont la motivation était d’ailleurs particulièrement développée, puisque celui-ci ne comptait pas moins de 187 paragraphes, il est certes exact qu’il n’y était pas spécifiquement répondu à certains des arguments présentés par l’intéressé dans le cadre de son recours. Mais cette circonstance n’est pas de nature, en soi, à vicier la régularité de cet avis ou celle de la décision finale prise au vu de celui-ci. Si les organes de recours doivent se prononcer, en principe, sur chacun des moyens soulevés devant eux (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4063, au considérant 5), ils ne sont en effet pas pour autant tenus de répondre en détail à l’ensemble des éléments d’argumentation invoqués à l’appui de ces moyens (voir notamment les jugements 4507, au considérant 3, et 4165, au considérant 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4165, 4507
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Le requérant se plaignait du fait que l'organe de recours interne n'avait pas examiné tous ses arguments dans la mesure où son recours avait été joint avec d'autres et avait été rédigé en français, alors que la Commission de recours a rendu un avis en anglais.
"Il ressort en effet du dossier que, eu égard à la multiplicité de ces contestations, l’Office avait pris le parti de statuer sur les demandes de réexamen introduites en la matière par une décision commune. En outre, la Commission de recours a, par souci d’économie de procédure, examiné conjointement dans un même avis les divers recours qui avaient été formés par des membres des chambres de recours à ce sujet et dont certains avaient été choisis comme affaires pilotes.
Le Tribunal observe que cette façon de procéder, qui ne contrevient à aucune règle en vigueur et qui, s’agissant de la procédure applicable devant la Commission de recours, est même expressément prévue par les articles 9ter et 10 du Règlement d’application des articles 106 à 113 du Statut des fonctionnaires, était assurément opportune au regard du nombre substantiel et de la similarité des contestations en cause.
Il est vrai que le choix, ainsi opéré, de traiter ces contestations de façon commune avait pour conséquence qu’il ne puisse pas être répondu en détail, dans les décisions prises et dans l’avis de la Commission de recours, à l’ensemble des arguments invoqués par chacun des fonctionnaires concernés.
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder;
Judgment 5179
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request to access his complete medical file and contests the validity of the internal appeals proceedings.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is established in the Tribunal’s case law that the executive head of an international organization, “when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations” (see Judgments 4855, consideration 8, 4700, consideration 4, 4545, consideration 4, and 4062, consideration 3). This is not the case here. The majority opinion of the Appeals Committee was not favourable to the complainant; rather, the impugned decision departed from it in the complainant’s favour. In these circumstances, the decision-making authority was under no obligation to provide reasons for deviating from the appeals body’s opinion, and the complainant, therefore, has no interest in raising this issue."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4545, 4700, 4855
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; recommendation;
Judgment 5149
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue him with a written reprimand.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal has consistently stated, as it recalled in consideration 5 of Judgment 5003, for example, that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning the Tribunal’s limited power of review and not to that of an internal appeal body. This, according to the Tribunal, is because internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged, and that, ordinarily, the task of internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made as its power extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions, which restriction is not provided for in the FAO’s rules. This error of law by the Appeals Committee is sufficient basis for setting aside the impugned decision without it being necessary to consider other grounds.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
advisory body; case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; due process; internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 5146
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the FAO’s decisions to impose on him the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal for misconduct, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations (UN) system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
“A right to an effective internal appeal is an important one. […] the role of an internal appeals body ordinarily involves a comprehensive review of the facts and, if appropriate, the consideration of fresh evidence. The complainant is entitled to an effective internal appeal, and the matter should be remitted to the FAO to enable his appeal to be heard by a freshly constituted Appeals Committee […]. The impugned decision should be set aside though, in the absence of an order of reinstatement, setting aside the impugned decision does not lead to the complainant’s re-engagement as a staff member of the Organization.
Whatever the outcome of the present dispute, the effect of the failure to properly examine the complainant’s internal appeal was to delay its final settlement. In the circumstances of the case, that failure has in itself caused the complainant moral injury which will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay him compensation of 5,000 United States dollars.”
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeals body; judicial review; moral damages; moral injury; right of appeal; role of the tribunal;
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 3
Extract:
More specifically, regarding the opinions of internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that these are internal steps in the process leading to final decisions and cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4978, consideration 9, 4791, consideration 3, 4721, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 5, 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6)The rationale underlying this case law, which characterizes advisory opinions of internal appeal bodies as mere internal steps, applies all the more to decisions rendered during the course of an internal appeal process concerning specific procedural requests from the parties, such as those for hearings, recusal of panel members, or disclosure of documents. Concerning, more particularly, requests for recusal, the Tribunal has underlined, in consideration 3 of Judgment 4570, rendered on the complainant’s second complaint, that “a decision concerning the composition of an internal body is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal, but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision. As such, it may be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the decision to be taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure” (see also Judgments 4297, consideration 7, and 4131, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 4131, 4297, 4392, 4570, 4637, 4721, 4791, 4978
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; final decision; internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Considerations 29-30
Extract:
“An internal appeal body has a duty to address pleas of substance […]. Yet, the Appeal Board report shows that while it apparently identified what it considered as being potential issues on the question of the alleged conflict of interest, it did not resolve these issues as part of its remarks. Similarly, regarding the evidence and the burden of proof, the Appeal Board noted the applicable standard of preponderance of evidence […] and the beyond reasonable doubt standard applied by the Disciplinary Chamber, and even expressed having some doubts on the evidence from both sides. Still, it refrained from explaining what to conclude from these different standards and what these doubts were and amounted to, or from resolving any discrepancies that may have existed in its mind.
[A]n appeal board [is] wrong to consider that it was not competent to ascertain, in its opinion, whether an internal investigative body had correctly assessed the probative value of the documents and information provided by a complainant in support of an internal complaint, and that this error of law had the effect of denying the complainant his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly considered. The same applies in the present situation.”
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; investigation; manifest error; plea; right of appeal;
Consideration 31
Extract:
“[T]he role of the Tribunal […] is normally not to assess itself the evidence. […] [T]he Tribunal relevantly recalled that “[...] [i]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body, the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence […].”
Moreover, for the Tribunal to determine whether it is satisfied that evidence was available for the decision maker to reach the conclusions that it reached and that the latter properly applied the relevant standard in doing so, it needs to first have available the findings and determinations of the internal appeal body in this regard when the latter, like in the instant case, expressly indicates still having “some doubts on the evidence from both sides”. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4923, consideration 5, “[w]hile the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them was, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should have been taken […]”. It is indeed particularly not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4923
Keywords:
internal appeals body; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5104
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject as time-barred her compensation claim for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]n his decision of 9 March 2022, the Director-General accepted the unanimous recommendation made by the JAAB in its report […] and, therefore, the views of the JAAB should have been considered by the Compensation Committee in its new consideration of the complainant’s compensation claim, but they were not. The JAAB’s detailed reasoning on what was the starting point for calculating the six-month time limit for the submission of her compensation claim spanned a little over three pages of factual and legal analysis. It culminated with a conclusion that a diagnosis made […] in December 2019 could serve as a starting point for the timeframe for the complainant filing a compensation claim. Given the history of the matter, it was clearly incumbent on the majority of the members of the Compensation Committee to explain why they did not accept, and, in fact, rejected, the JAAB’s analysis or, at least, why it was open to them to draw the unfavourable inference they did, in the face of the JAAB’s analysis.
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; illness; internal appeals body; recommendation; service-incurred; time limit;
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 6
Extract:
“It appears that, in the minds of the drafters of the JAAB’s recommendation, the consideration that “the JAAB has no mandate to investigate the recommendations of the JADB” was based on the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body, and the findings of such a body are entitled to considerable deference by it, unless they have been improperly established or reveal a manifest error […]. However, this case law concerns the role of the Tribunal itself, not that of an appeal body […]. This case law is explained, inter alia, by the fact that it is not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body and by the idea that it is not best placed to assess the reliability of the statements of persons who may be heard in the course of an investigation. More generally, it refers to the particular features and limits of the Tribunal’s judicial role. However, these specificities do not apply to appeal bodies and, as the Tribunal has held on several occasions, such a body is wrong, when, in defining its own role, it refers to restrictions that apply in certain cases to the judicial review of administrative decisions […]. While the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them is, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made […].The power of internal appeal bodies extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is where the rules governing the appeal body provide for such restrictions […]. The internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition, their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation, and the broad investigative powers granted to them. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, they gather the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof […].
Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case not only did the JAAB refuse to further investigate the case, it also refused to conduct a legal analysis of the proceedings before the JADB, in order to assess whether it complied with the applicable staff rules and regulations and whether the procedural flaws in the process alleged by the complainant had occurred.
It should be emphasized that this error of law, which resulted in the JAAB’s refusal to fully review the disciplinary decision, had the effect of denying the complainant his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly considered by that body. As a result, the complainant was not granted a fair and effective internal remedy.”
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; harassment; internal appeals body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
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 14
Extract:
Il est vrai que, en vertu d’une jurisprudence bien établie à laquelle le Conseil a apparemment entendu se référer sur ce point, le Tribunal fixe certaines limites à son propre pouvoir de réexamen dans ce domaine (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4703, au considérant 8, 4291, au considérant 12, ou 3593, au considérant 12). Mais cette jurisprudence – qui ne saurait au demeurant s’interpréter comme excluant tout contrôle juridictionnel de l’appréciation portée par l’organe d’enquête sur le bien-fondé d’une plainte – concerne le rôle du Tribunal lui-même, et non celui d’un organe de recours tel que le Conseil d’appel.
La jurisprudence en question renvoie, plus généralement, aux particularités et limites de la mission juridictionnelle dévolue au Tribunal. Or, ces spécificités ne valent pas pour les organes de recours et, comme le Tribunal a eu maintes fois l’occasion de l’affirmer, un tel organe se méprend lorsque, pour définir son propre rôle, il se réfère aux restrictions qui s’appliquent, dans certaines hypothèses, au contrôle juridictionnel des décisions administratives (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4923, au considérant 5, 3161, au considérant 5, ou 3077, au considérant 3). En effet, si le Tribunal a pour seule mission de vérifier la légalité de ces décisions et se prononce, en principe, exclusivement en droit, il appartient aux organes de recours, qui sont pour leur part investis d’un pouvoir de contrôle s’étendant au réexamen complet de celles-ci, de déterminer si la décision qui leur est soumise était, à leurs yeux, celle qu’il convenait effectivement de prendre ou si, au vu du dossier, il aurait fallu en prendre une autre (voir, par exemple, les jugements 5003, au considérant 5, 3161, au considérant 6, ou 3032, au considérant 10). Il n’en va différemment que si les règles régissant l’organe de recours restreignent ce pouvoir (voir notamment les jugements 3318, au considérant 5, et 3077, au considérant 3), ce qui n’est pas le cas du Conseil d’appel de l’UNESCO en matière de décisions relatives à l’examen de plaintes pour harcèlement.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 3077, 3161, 3318, 3593, 4291, 4703, 4923, 5003
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; evidence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 5051
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de classer ses plaintes pour harcèlement à l’issue des procédures d’évaluation préliminaire de celles-ci.
Considerations 2-4
Extract:
Il ressort […] de l’avis du Conseil d’appel […] que cet organe, estimant implicitement devoir suivre l’argumentation en ce sens présentée devant lui par l’UNESCO, a considéré, pour l’essentiel, qu’il ne lui appartenait pas de se prononcer sur le bien-fondé des décisions de classement contestées, mais seulement de vérifier si ces dernières avaient été prises dans le respect des règles relatives au traitement des plaintes pour harcèlement résultant des textes en vigueur au sein de l’Organisation et de la jurisprudence du Tribunal. Cet avis ne comporte, par suite, au-delà de quelques considérations générales soulignant que les conflits professionnels ne sont pas forcément constitutifs de harcèlement et que les mesures critiquées par le requérant n’étaient pas de nature disciplinaire, aucune appréciation sur la pertinence des conclusions adoptées par la Conseillère pour l’éthique au sujet des faits précis exposés par l’intéressé à l’appui de ses plaintes.
Or, en s’abstenant ainsi presque totalement de contrôler quant au fond les décisions de classement litigieuses, le Conseil d’appel a commis une erreur de droit. En effet, il appartient en principe à un organe de recours de vérifier aussi bien la régularité que le bien-fondé des décisions administratives qui lui sont soumises et aucune règle ne faisait obstacle, en l’occurrence, à ce que ce pouvoir soit exercé dans sa plénitude.
Il est vrai que, selon une jurisprudence bien établie à laquelle s’est référé le Conseil d’appel dans son avis, il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de réévaluer les preuves analysées par un organe d’enquête et les conclusions d’un tel organe méritent, sauf à ce qu’elles aient été irrégulièrement établies ou révèlent une erreur manifeste, la plus grande considération de sa part (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4703, au considérant 8, 4291, au considérant 12, 4091, au considérant 17, ou 3593, au considérant 12). Mais cette jurisprudence – qui ne saurait au demeurant s’interpréter comme excluant tout contrôle juridictionnel du bien-fondé des décisions statuant sur des plaintes pour harcèlement – concerne le rôle du Tribunal lui-même, et non celui d’un organe de recours tel que le Conseil d’appel.
S’expliquant notamment par le fait que le Tribunal n’a pas vocation à procéder à des investigations analogues à celles d’un organe d’enquête et par l’idée suivant laquelle il n’est pas le mieux placé pour évaluer la fiabilité des déclarations des personnes éventuellement entendues par celui-ci, la jurisprudence en question renvoie, plus généralement, aux particularités et limites de la mission juridictionnelle dévolue au Tribunal. Or, ces spécificités ne valent pas pour les organes de recours et, comme le Tribunal a eu maintes fois l’occasion de l’affirmer, un tel organe se méprend lorsque, pour définir son propre rôle, il se réfère aux restrictions qui s’appliquent, dans certaines hypothèses, au contrôle juridictionnel des décisions administratives (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4923, au considérant 5, 3161, au considérant 5, ou 3077, au considérant 3). En effet, si le Tribunal a pour seule mission de vérifier la légalité de ces décisions et se prononce, en principe, exclusivement en droit, il appartient aux organes de recours, qui sont pour leur part investis d’un pouvoir de contrôle s’étendant au réexamen complet de celles-ci, de déterminer si la décision qui leur est soumise était, à leurs yeux, celle qu’il convenait effectivement de prendre ou si, au vu du dossier, il aurait fallu en prendre une autre (voir, par exemple, les jugements 5003, au considérant 5, 3161, au considérant 6, ou 3032, au considérant 10). Il n’en va différemment que si les règles régissant l’organe de recours restreignent ce pouvoir (voir notamment les jugements 3318, au considérant 5, et 3077, au considérant 3), ce qui n’est pas le cas du Conseil d’appel de l’UNESCO en matière de décisions relatives à l’examen de plaintes pour harcèlement.
Dès lors, c’est à tort que le Conseil d’appel a estimé devoir quasi exclusivement limiter le contrôle exercé sur les décisions de classement dont il était saisi à la vérification de leur régularité au regard des règles de procédure applicables. Au-delà de cette erreur de droit en elle-même, le fait que le Conseil se soit en conséquence dispensé de traiter, dans le corps de son avis, des allégations précises sur lesquelles reposaient les plaintes du requérant confère à la motivation de cet avis un caractère lacunaire, ce qui constitue un autre vice entachant ce dernier. En outre, il y a lieu de souligner que l’absence de contrôle concret par cet organe de la pertinence du classement des plaintes en cause a eu pour effet de priver l’intéressé de son droit à voir le bien-fondé de ses recours internes dûment examiné par celui-ci.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 3077, 3161, 3318, 3593, 4091, 4291, 4703, 4923, 5003
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 5017
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante considère avoir été privée de ses fonctions par suite d’une restructuration et demande réparation du préjudice qu’elle estime avoir subi en raison de ce qu’elle estime être une résiliation de facto de son engagement.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]l est de jurisprudence constante que la charge de la preuve d’un manque d’impartialité d’un ou de plusieurs membres d’un organe de recours interne incombe à tout requérant. De simples soupçons et des allégations non étayées par une preuve tangible ne suffisent manifestement pas à établir un manque d’impartialité (voir également les jugements 4662, au considérant 13, et 4553, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553, 4662
Keywords:
burden of proof; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 5015
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 for additional medical leave days or compensation, her request for a similar position within another unit, and her request to adjust her position title.
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
The complainant asserts multiple procedural grievances, alleging that the Appeal Board denied her a fair appeal and the possibility of an effective remedy, thereby breaching due process by improperly granting extensions, displaying bias through clarification requests, making inaccurate statements, and disregarding medical evidence. […]
As the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, allegations of this kind can only be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate them (see, for example, Judgments 4099, consideration 11, 3914, consideration 7, and 3543, consideration 20). The complainant failed to discharge her burden of proving such allegations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3543, 3914, 4099
Keywords:
burden of proof; internal appeals body;
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.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent case law establishes that internal appeals bodies are not obliged to address every individual argument raised, provided their conclusions adequately reflect the essential points considered (see, for example, Judgment 4763, consideration 6). Moreover, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, allegations of bias can only be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate them (see, for example, Judgments 4099, consideration 11, 3914, consideration 7, 3543, consideration 20, and 1775, consideration 7), which the complainant has not provided.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3543, 3914, 4099, 4763
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; internal appeals body; misuse of authority;
Judgment 5009
140th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “Effective performance” rating contained in her appraisal report covering the period from June 2017 to May 2018, as well as a comment made in such report about her having been on extended leave and having worked part-time during the appraisal period.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Th[e] factual conclusions [of the internal appeals body] are manifestly the product of a thoughtful and balanced consideration of the issues raised by the complainant and warrant the deference the Tribunal’s case law has repeatedly acknowledged (see Judgments 4850, consideration 3, 4488, consideration 7, and 3608, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3608, 4488, 4850
Keywords:
deference; internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 5007
140th Session, 2025
International Cocoa Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the date of his within-grade step increment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; recommendation; step;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeal body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations […].
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 5003
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The [Global Board of Appeal] […] misconceived its role as, in its 25 October 2021 recommendations, it refused to reweigh the evidence and to assess the facts. It stated:
“According to [...] Judgment 3593, consideration 12, it is not the role of an appellate body to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. Owing deference to the investigative body, the appellate body should only interfere in the case of manifest error. The Panel was satisfied that the IOS [r]eport discussed, under each incident, all the evidence received and found, including the [complainant]’s answers to the investigator’s questions. The Panel was of the view that an on-site visit by IOS might have been advisable.
The Tribunal’s precedent quoted by the GBA concerns the role of the Tribunal, not the role of the internal appeal bodies. On the contrary, with regard to the role of the internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning its limited power of review. Internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged (see, for example, Judgments 3161, consideration 5, and 3077, consideration 3). Indeed, ordinarily, the task of the internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made (see Judgment 3161, consideration 6). The power of internal appeal bodies extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions (see Judgment 3318, consideration 5). The internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition, their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation, and the broad investigative powers granted to them. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, they gather the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof (see Judgment 3423, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3161, 3318, 3423, 3593
Keywords:
advisory body; due process; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4996
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who filed a harassment complaint, challenges the decision to close the investigative process at the preliminary evaluation stage.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[F]orce est de constater que ces nouvelles assertions ne sont, contrairement aux exigences de la jurisprudence du Tribunal en matière d’allégations de partialité, assorties d’aucune preuve. Elles ne sauraient donc, en tout état de cause, être retenues (voir notamment les jugements 4553, au considérant 7, 4422, au considérant 17, ou 4097, au considérant 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4097, 4422, 4553
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4995
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the terms on which he was reimbursed for his disabled child’s educational costs.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[F]orce est de constater que ces nouvelles assertions ne sont, contrairement aux exigences de la jurisprudence du Tribunal en matière d’allégations de partialité, assorties d’aucune preuve. Elles ne sauraient donc, en tout état de cause, être retenues (voir notamment les jugements 4553, au considérant 7, 4422, au considérant 17, ou 4097, au considérant 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4097, 4422, 4553
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4953
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant further refers to the Tribunal’s statement in considerations 19 and 20 of Judgment 3586 that “all relevant documents should have been disclosed [by the Organization in question] to [the internal appeal body], without its request, to enable it to thoroughly investigate the central question: whether funds were or would have been available or were ‘expected to be assured’ at the material time to fund the extension” of the contract of the complainant in that case. The complainant states that she provided evidence to the JAB that as of 12 June 2020, there was a balance of over 2 million euros in the IAEA’s budget to fund the HR and non-HR functions in her department and the latter should have produced to the JAB all the documents related to the allotment transfer in June 2020 and whether it was done in line with its Financial Regulations and Rules in order to determine, in effect, whether funds were available to continue to fund her position. She submits that the IAEA’s failure to produce the documents to her and to the JAB constituted a breach of due process. She cites the Tribunal statement in consideration 17 of Judgment 3586 that the organization in that case “breached due process by not disclosing all of the agreements and related information, which could have assisted the [internal appeal body] to have made a properly informed determination whether financial constraint was a valid reason for not extending [her] contract”. […] The foregoing submissions show that the complainant has failed to appreciate, first, that in Judgment 3586, the question of whether funds were “expected to be assured” was an enquiry dictated by a specific provision (Paragraph III.5.12 of WHO’s e-Manual) which is not applicable in the present case […]. In the second place, Judgment 3586 was not concerned with the non-extension of an appointment to a position funded by extra-budgetary contribution by a donor government wherein the IAEA was under no obligation to allocate funds from its regular budget to fund the position when the donor government withdrew its funding for it in the terms stated in consideration 9 of this judgment, which the Tribunal accepts, as did the JAB. […] Stated in another way, the essential question regarding this aspect of the third ground is not (as the complainant suggests) whether as of [the time of the non-renewal] sufficient funds remained in the Department’s budget to cover the complainant’s position […] The question is whether funds had been allocated by the donor government to continue to fund the complainant’s extra-budgetary post when its term expired […], and they were not. There was therefore no basis for the IAEA to disclose information concerning the question whether funds were or could have been made available from the IAEA’s regular budget or were ”expected to be assured” to continue to fund the complainant’s position. It was therefore unnecessary for the JAB to order the disclosure of the documents she seeks or for the IAEA to share them with the JAB without its request.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; budgetary reasons; disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeals body; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Tribunal further recalls its case law, stated, for example in consideration 5 of Judgment 4674, that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body which, as the primary trier of fact has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said and for that reason the body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where such a body has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation thereof, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4674
Keywords:
internal appeals body; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4945
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision to confirm the allegations of sexual harassment against him, to impose on him a ban from all future employment with the FAO/World Food Programme, to include his name in the United Nations Clear Check screening database for perpetrators of sexual harassment, not to renew his short-term contract following a mandatory break in service, and to place a note in his personnel file confirming this.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s assessment of the investigation that had been undertaken by OIGI is that it was thorough and balanced. Its report was cogent and persuasive. It is not for the Tribunal to itself determine whether the conduct of the subject of the grievance has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there was evidence before the decision-maker which would justify such a decision by that decision-maker (see, for example, Judgment 3964, consideration 13). In this case there was. More generally, the Tribunal will accept findings of fact by investigative bodies, particularly when they have heard evidence from witnesses (as happened in this case) in the absence of manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3964, 4237
Keywords:
decision-maker; deference; discretion; internal appeals body; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
