|
|
 |
|
|
Composition of the internal appeals body (813, 82, 973,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Composition of the internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 65
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 5180
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s invalidity reforms.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"A number of the complainant’s arguments are concerned with the composition of the Appeals Committee, its proceedings, and the content of its opinion. He insists that his case be returned to the Office for new deliberations after a proper internal appeal process. Regarding the claim concerning the ban on any gainful activities or employment, given that the case will be remitted to the EPO based on consideration 18 above, there is no need to address these pleas. As for the other claims, the Tribunal’s case law holds that when complaints are judged by the Tribunal as devoid of merit – as in the present case – no useful purpose would be served by sending the case back to the Organisation in this regard […]. Additionally, the EPO informed the Tribunal that it had paid 100 euros in moral damages to […] the present complainant, following Judgment 4550; therefore, the complainant has already been awarded compensation for the unlawful composition of the Appeals Committee […], and he has not demonstrated that his moral injury warrants higher compensation in this respect. In such a situation, there is no need to address the merits of the pleas concerning the composition of the Appeals Committee, or its proceedings […]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4550
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; relief claimed;
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 10
Extract:
"Most of the complainant’s arguments are concerned with the composition of the Appeals Committee, its proceedings, and the use of a summary procedure for his appeal. He insists his case be remitted to the Office for new deliberations after a proper internal appeal process. The Tribunal’s case law holds that when complaints are judged by the Tribunal as devoid of merit – as in the present case – no useful purpose would be served by remitting the case to the Organisation […]. Moreover, since the complaint is judged by the Tribunal as devoid of merit, no different result for the complainant could be obtained by renewing the consultation process before the Appeals Committee […]. Additionally, the EPO informed the Tribunal that it had paid 100 euros in moral damages to […] the present complainant […]. Therefore, the complainant has already been compensated for the unlawful composition of the Appeals Committee. In such a situation, there is no need to address the merits of the pleas concerning the composition of the Appeals Committee and its proceedings […]. It must also be noted that, insofar as the decision-making authority departed from the Appeals Committee’s opinion, in the complainant’s partial favour, any flaws which may have occurred in the composition of the appeal body or the process before it, are irrelevant to the outcome of the case and, thus, there is no need to address the merits of the pleas concerning the composition of the Appeals Committee."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; relief claimed;
Judgment 5174
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recusal of the chairperson of the Appeals Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; step in the procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
“The existence of a specific process […] for addressing partiality objections – comprising a first decision by the Appeals Committee and a second decision by an independent panel – does not elevate the independent panel’s decision to a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. It remains a mere step in the internal appeal process, leading to the opinion of the internal appeal body and, subsequently, to the final decision of the decision-making authority. Any issues concerning the independent panel’s decision can and must be raised if and when the final decision is impugned.”
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; step in the 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 3
Extract:
The existence of a specific process, under paragraphs 30 to 32 of IN/217 Rev.3, for addressing partiality objections does not elevate the decision of the Director, HRM, to a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, notwithstanding that such decision by the Director, HRM, cannot be “subject to further objection by the appellant”. It remains a mere step in the internal appeal process, leading to the opinion of the internal appeal body and, subsequently, to the final decision of the competent authority. Any issues regarding decisions on partiality objections raised by the complainant can and must be raised if and when the final decision is challenged.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 5082
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the increase in employees’ contribution rate to the healthcare insurance scheme.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant criticizes aspects of the internal appeal procedure, particularly regarding the composition of the Appeals Committee and the alleged “interference” of the EPO. The Tribunal has determined that there is no need to address these pleas, taking note that the EPO has already paid 100 euros in moral damages to the complainant, following Judgment 4550 (see, for example, Judgment 4799, consideration 5). The complainant’s claim for additional moral damages in this respect is rejected, as well as his claim seeking the quashing of a series of decisions applicable to the internal appeal process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4550, 4799
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4915
139th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the BIPM’s decision to close his harassment complaint and to reject his requests for compensation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that Rule 18.5.3 of the BIPM Staff Manual, entitled “Incompatibilities of Appeals Committee members”, provides that:
“The Appeals Committee shall not include any member involved in the process leading up to the case, in relation with his functions or a mediation procedure. This member is hence replaced by his substitute.”
The Tribunal notes that, in principle, persons who played a role as parties, decision-making authorities, or witnesses in administrative proceedings should not act as members of the internal appeal body in ensuing internal appeal proceedings. In the context of the BIPM, failure to respect this would amount to “incompatibility” within the meaning of Rule 18.5.3, and would, in any event, be inconsistent with the Tribunal’s case law concerning due process and the impartiality of an internal appeal body. Relevantly, in Judgment 3732, consideration 3, the Tribunal held that the member, whose participation in the internal appeal body was contested in that case, could not be a member of the internal appeal body assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the internal appeal body had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. In those circumstance, the contested member’s impartiality might be open to question as there were reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgments 2671, consideration 10, and 2225, consideration 19). The fact that the decision of an appeal body is reached unanimously does not eliminate the flaw in the process due to the participation in the decision-making of a member who should have recused themselves. Indeed, the participation in an appeal body of a member having a conflict of interest may influence the decision-making of the other members (see Judgment 4772, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Appeals Committee member […] who was heard as a witness in the investigation process, and in this capacity referred to specific episodes involving the complainant and the Director, should not have participated in the appeal proceedings as a member of the Appeals Committee, irrespective of the fact that the Appeals Committee adopted its opinion unanimously.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671, 3732, 4772
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; impartiality; member of an internal body; recusal; rules of the organisation;
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.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[The complainant] submits that the Commission was improperly constituted and that its members had a conflict of interest so that they were biased and not impartial. This, he states, is because the members of the panel had already expressed a concluded view in their initial report that he was culpable of the allegation of harassment […] He cites the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 12 of Judgment 2671, that “a reasonable person knowing that a member of [an internal Appeal’s body] had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved [and that] failing an explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their view on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality” […] The Tribunal notes that […] the members of the Commission did not express a prior view on the issue whether the complainant had [engaged in sexual harassment] to lead to a conclusion that they did not embark upon considering the internal appeal in the reopened investigation with open minds thereby casting doubt on their impartiality and precluding them from considering the latter internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2671
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; harassment; impartiality; internal appeals body; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4699
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he fact that the Secretary of the Joint Committee for Disputes was a “direct subordinate” of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit does not in itself compromise the independence and impartiality of that body (see, in this connection, Judgment 4594, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4594
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4662
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.
Consideration 6
Extract:
With regard to her first plea concerning the unlawfulness of the decision refusing her application for voluntary departure owing to flaws in the procedure before the Workforce Mobility Committee, the complainant firstly submits that the Committee was not composed in compliance with Article 2.1 of Staff Instruction No. 2015.26, in that only three of the five members specified took part.
However, according to the evidence in the file, in July 2018 the Executive Director, Police Services (EDPS), also held the position of Executive Director for Strategy and Governance (EDSG), and the position of Assistant Director of Finance and Procurement (EDRM/FSSM/FIN) was vacant and so supervised by the Executive Director for Resource Management (EDRM). Both these directors were members of the Committee. The complainant does not effectively contest this fact, which explains why the Committee sat in the composition in question.
This argument will therefore be rejected.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4599
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post, reassign her, terminate her contract including the decision to defer the date of her termination, and to reject her claims of retaliation.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant argues that there was conflict of interest because the composition of the GBA was the same as the one that examined her previous appeal underlying her second complaint; hence, its members were influenced by their findings on that appeal, in particular the finding that her allegations of harassment were not supported by facts. However, the fact that some members of the GBA had sat in a prior appeal and arrived at conclusions adverse to the complainant did not prevent them from considering the appeal at issue in the instant case, as the complainant asserts.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant alleges that the independence of the Joint Committee for Disputes was compromised by the fact that the Secretary of the Committee was a subordinate of the Head of the Human Resources and Staff Administration Service.
The Tribunal notes, however, first, that the appointment by the Director General of a Eurocontrol official as the Secretary of the Committee is expressly provided for in Article 2 of the Annex to Office Notice No. 06/11 on the Functioning of the Joint Committee for Disputes tasked with handling complaints and, secondly, that there is nothing to preclude that official from being a subordinate of that Head of Service. The Secretary of the Committee, who fulfils a purely administrative role, does not form part of the Committee. In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Secretary overstepped his role, nor, a fortiori, that he attempted to influence the members of the Committee in a way dictated by his superior.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4570
134th Session, 2022
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her request to suspend the consideration by the Joint Administrative Review Board of three internal appeals she had lodged, pending the Tribunal’s determination on corresponding complaints filed directly with it.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In the request addressed to the Director General the complainant raised a number of issues related to the composition of the JARB. In substance, the complainant argues that the Administration as a whole has a conflict of interest in all internal appeals lodged by her. However, this type of argument can be invoked before the Tribunal only when challenging a final administrative decision. Indeed, 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, for example, Judgments 4131, consideration 4, and 4297, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4131, 4297
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal remedies not exhausted; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4447
133rd Session, 2022
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of some of her functions, arguing that such removal amounted to de facto demotion.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The evidence does not reveal that the Joint Committee was not constituted in accordance with Article 2 of its Procedure. Nonetheless, its composition bears out the complainant’s observation that it could not be seen as an internal appeal body which was objective or impartial owing to the “contamination between professional tasks” and the overlapping of roles and functions. […] The Tribunal concludes that the obvious close administrative roles of some of the members of the Joint Committee violated the complainant’s right to have her internal appeal heard by a properly functioning body.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; impartiality;
Judgment 4419
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In a judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020, Judgment 4322, there was a conclusive determination that staff members in the position of the complainants had no cause of action to challenge, relevantly, the appointment of Vice-Presidents to the GAC (see Judgment 4322, considerations 8 and 9). Indeed the three complainants in the present proceedings were complainants in the proceedings leading to Judgment 4322. The question of whether the complainants had a cause of action was raised by the Tribunal of its own motion notwithstanding it had not been raised by the parties before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis of the Tribunal in Judgment 4322. Suffice it to note that there are no material factual or legal differences between the circumstances addressed in that judgment and those of the present case [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322
Keywords:
cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; member of an internal body; precedent;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; member of an internal body;
Judgment 4318
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his objectives for the reporting exercise January to December 2015 and the composition of the Appeals Committee that issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; performance evaluation;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The allegation that the Appeals Committee was improperly composed due to three of the members having been members of the Committee which was found to be unlawfully composed in Judgment 3785, is unfounded. The composition of that prior Committee was found to be unlawful as it breached the applicable rules in force at the material time, not for any reason relating to the individual members.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3785
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4090
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the processing of his application for a disability benefit and the calculation of his sick leave entitlements.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he final constitution of the Board [was delayed] for almost four months. This was an unreasonably long period and delayed the resolution of the complainant’s application, which was ultimately successful, for a disability benefit. While the complainant has not discharged the burden of proving retaliation, bias and prejudice, the IAEA is liable for the consequences of this delay involving, as it does, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant, a ground relied on by the complainant in his fifth argument (see Judgment 2936, consideration 19). The IAEA, through its officers, was obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the complainant’s request for review of the decision to refuse him a disability benefit was dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If, as happened, an impasse about who should be the Chair arose between a member of the Board nominated by the staff member and a temporary member [...] of the Board nominated by the Administration who also had the responsibility to nominate another member as his own replacement, then steps should have been taken with great expedition to nominate the member to replace him.
Keywords:
breach; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; disability benefit; duty of care; medical board; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4049
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Appeals Committee which issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The claim raised by the complainant that the Appeals Committee, which, by a summary procedure, in accordance with Article 9 of the Implementing Rules for Articles 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations, unanimously recommended rejecting his appeal as
manifestly irreceivable, was improperly constituted is a threshold issue. One member of the Appeals Committee issued a concurring opinion in which he agreed with the findings and conclusions of the other members, except with respect to the issue of the composition of the Appeals Committee.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body;
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Tribunal’s examination is limited to considering the provision in force at the material time [...].
At the material time, Article 5 of the Implementing Rules concerning the appointment of members of the Appeals Committee provided for the appointment of full members and alternate members.
The Tribunal is satisfied that two of the four members were appointed by the President [...] and two were chosen “[b]y way of exception” among eligible staff members [...], and considers that the Committee’s balanced composition was guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of Article 36(2)(a) of the Service Regulations, which are not ambiguous. The Appeals Committee was competent to rule on the legality of its composition, which is a condition for its competence. The Appeals Committee’s decision to apply the summary procedure was a proper exercise of its power of evaluation.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4035
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses her former supervisor of moral harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[F]irstly, an official’s right to be informed of the composition of the Appeals Board, the main purpose of which is to enable members of the Board to be recused, does not entitle her or him to be given the names of the Administration’s representative and observer, who are not members of the Board.
Secondly, even assuming that the complainant was entitled to be provided with the documents that she wished to consult, the evidence does not show that the failure to disclose those documents had, in this case, a material impact on her right to be heard.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; disclosure of evidence; right to information;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Consideration 8
Extract:
These circumstances are not the same as those in Judgment 3184, for example, in which the Tribunal stated, in consideration 15, that if a member of an internal appeal board had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new internal appeal board to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3890
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
In his submissions the complainant dwells at length on the issue of the composition of the Appeals Committee, which he considers was unlawful. In support of his arguments he refers to Judgment 3694, concerning his third complaint, in which the Tribunal found that the Appeals Committee was not properly composed. After the filing of the present complaint, the Tribunal delivered Judgment 3785, which is even more relevant to this case in view of the composition of the Appeals Committee that dealt with the underlying internal appeal. In light of these judgments, the complainant is correct in considering that the Appeals Committee which issued an opinion on his appeal was not composed properly, which renders the final decision of the Principal Director Human Resources based on that opinion unlawful.
Ordinarily, this finding would lead the Tribunal to remit the matter to the EPO so that the complainant’s internal appeal could be examined by an Appeals Committee composed in accordance with the applicable rules. In this case, however, the Tribunal will not proceed in that manner. As the complaint is clearly devoid of merit, no useful purpose would be served by sending the case back to the EPO.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; flaw;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
