Direct appeal to Tribunal (85, 25, 779, 780,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Direct appeal to Tribunal
Total judgments found: 159
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 5194
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred in national criminal proceedings.
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
“The EPO raises a number of preliminary issues concerning the complaint. It is only necessary to address one, namely the failure of the complainant to lodge an internal appeal […]. The relevance of this arises because of Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute. It is not in issue that no internal appeal was lodged. At least in the ordinary case, that failure would render irreceivable a subsequent complaint because the complainant had not exhausted the internal means of redress, as provided in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. However, the complainant seeks to avoid this consequence of his failure to lodge an internal appeal because of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute. That provision operates in circumstances “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. The question that then arises is whether there was such a failure. […]
[I]t is necessary to assess whether the 27 April 2017 decision constitutes a “decision upon [those] claim[s]” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3975, consideration 5, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that the expression “decision upon any claim” in Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute comprehends “any action [taken by the Administration] to deal with a claim” (see, for example, Judgment 4820, consideration 6(a), and the case law cited therein). Plainly, in this case, the decision of the Administrative Council […] was action by the Administration to deal with the claim for reimbursement of costs. […] Accordingly, Article VII, paragraph 3, had no application and the complainant was not absolved from the requirement that he exhaust the internal means of redress arising from Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which would have included lodging an internal appeal against the implied rejection of his request for review […].
[…] As the complainant failed to lodge an internal appeal, he has not exhausted the internal remedies available to him as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. In the result, his complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428, 3975, 4820
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 5167
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the new calculation of his pension entitlements following the implementation of reduction coefficients compensating for salary increases.
Consideration 2
Extract:
While it is acknowledged that the express decision of 18 May 2020 was adopted by the Head of HRS and not by the Director General, as it ought to have been in accordance with Article 91(2) of the GCE, the Tribunal holds that the complainant was entitled to identify the 18 May 2020 decision as the final one on his complaint, given that the Organisation failed to give him clear indications as to the nature of this decision, which therefore appeared to be a challengeable decision as it was a decision with legal effects on the complainant.
Additionally, and in any event, no express decision by the Director General was adopted on his 5 March 2020 internal complaint within the four-month time limit set forth in Article 91(2) of the GCE. This period had commenced on 5 March 2020 and it had expired on 5 July 2020, before the filing of the present complaint with the Tribunal, within the 90-day time limit. Accordingly, in keeping with Article 91(2), last paragraph, of the GCE, the failure by the Director General to adopt an express decision within four months from 5 March 2020, constitutes “an implied decision rejecting” the complaint, which is amenable to challenge before the Tribunal (see Judgment 4769, consideration 2).
As such, the Tribunal will entertain the present complaint as a complaint filed against a final decision […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4769
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; final decision; implied decision;
Judgment 5159
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 end her service on the grounds of invalidity and to deduct from her invalidity allowance the contributions to the pension scheme.
Consideration 1
Extract:
«Le Tribunal relève […] qu’une décision définitive rejetant sa réclamation a été prise par le nouveau Directeur général en date du 20 juin 2025. Cette décision a été produite après qu’Eurocontrol eut déposé sa duplique, à la suite de quoi les parties ont eu l’occasion de s’exprimer à son sujet dans des écritures supplémentaires. Ainsi, conformément à la jurisprudence du Tribunal, il y a lieu de requalifier la présente requête, initialement formée contre une décision implicite, comme dirigée contre la décision du nouveau Directeur général […] (voir notamment, pour des cas de figure similaires, les jugements 4963, au considérant 3, 4962, au considérant 3, 4961, au considérant 3, 4820, au considérant 6, 4769, au considérant 3, 4768, au considérant 3, 4660, au considérant 6, 4065, au considérant 3, et 2786, au considérant 3). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 4065, 4660, 4768, 4769, 4820, 4961, 4962, 4963
Keywords:
administrative delay; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 5135
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her request that the Director, Human Resources Management, recuse himself from any involvement in her appeals due to an alleged conflict of interest; the decision to maintain the composition of the Joint Administrative Review Board panel constituted to review her internal appeals; and the decision to reject her request for direct appeal to the Tribunal.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Staff Rule 11.3.1 read:
“A staff member may, in agreement with the Director General, appeal directly to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation without first following the procedures provided for in Staff Regulations 11.1 and 11.2 and Staff Rules 11.1.1 and 11.2.1, in accordance with the provisions of the Statute and Rules of Procedure of that Tribunal.”
In the present case, the complainant requested authorization to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal, but this request was rejected by the competent authority. Furthermore, she has failed to establish before the Tribunal that she was otherwise exempted from the obligation to exhaust internal remedies (see Judgment 4661, consideration 2). Conversely, there is evidence on record that the complainant’s claims were promptly and thoroughly addressed by the Director General and the Chief of Staff. There was no implied rejection that might have justified the complainant’s direct challenge before the Tribunal.
Consequently, the complainant has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress available to her and lacked authorization to bypass them."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4661
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; waiver of internal appeal procedure;
Judgment 5086
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his election as an alternate member, rather than as a full member, of the Central Staff Committee.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly states that a complaint will not be receivable by the Tribunal unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations. The Tribunal has established through its case law that exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, will be made only in very limited circumstances, namely “where staff regulations provide that the decision in question is not such as to be subject to the internal appeal procedure; where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body; where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure; or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted” […].
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5077
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the suspension of the final decision on his invalidity and the referral of his case to a Medical Committee for a second opinion, and the decision to cancel his medical examination and the session of the second Medical Committee planned on 26 March 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; duplication of proceedings; final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision”.
[I]t is manifest from [the decision's] wording […] that it was not a final decision within the meaning of the Statute of the Tribunal. The President of the Office expressly stated that the final decision was suspended and that a further medical examination was required before the final decision could be taken. In Judgment 3560, considerations 1 to 4, the Tribunal held that an authority’s decision to suspend her or his decision as regards the relevant administrative consequences related to a possible recognition of invalidity and to request a further medical examination is not a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute; such a decision, in substance and in form, postponed the taking of the final decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3560
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 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 3
Extract:
Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a déjà affirmé à diverses reprises concernant Eurocontrol, notamment dans le jugement 4820, au considérant 6:
«a) Lorsque l’administration prend des mesures pour traiter une réclamation, par exemple en la transmettant à l’organe de recours interne compétent, cette démarche constitue en soi une “décision touchant ladite réclamation” au sens de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, du Statut du Tribunal, qui fait obstacle à la naissance d’une décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être déférée devant le Tribunal (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3715, au considérant 4, 3428, au considérant 18, et 3146, au considérant 12).
b) En application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le requérant aurait dû introduire une requête devant le Tribunal dans les quatre vingt-dix jours à compter de l’expiration du délai de quatre mois dont disposait l’administration pour répondre à sa réclamation, et ce, même si la Commission paritaire des litiges avait été saisie. La présente requête devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour tardiveté en vertu de l’article VII, paragraphe 2, du Statut du Tribunal, combiné avec le paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif.
c) Mais, en l’espèce, le Tribunal considère que le requérant a été induit en erreur par l’Organisation lorsque cette dernière lui a indiqué que, en raison de la transmission de sa réclamation à la Commission paritaire des litiges, il devait, en application de la jurisprudence du Tribunal relative à l’application de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, de son Statut, attendre la décision définitive du Directeur général avant de pouvoir saisir le Tribunal. Ce faisant, l’Organisation a en effet omis de tenir compte de ce que, en application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le défaut de réponse du Directeur général à une réclamation dans un délai de quatre mois à partir du jour de l’introduction de celle-ci vaut par ailleurs lui-même décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal. Il n’y a pas lieu de déclarer la requête irrecevable pour tardiveté, en ce qu’elle est dirigée contre une décision de rejet implicite émanant du Directeur général. Statuer en sens contraire reviendrait en effet à priver indûment le requérant de son droit de saisir le Tribunal en raison du seul comportement de l’Organisation.
d) Le Tribunal observe que, bien que le non-respect par le requérant du délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours pour saisir le Tribunal ait été ci-dessus reconnu comme admissible en raison du fait qu’il lui avait été indiqué à tort par l’Organisation qu’il devait attendre une décision explicite, l’intéressé n’a finalement pas attendu l’intervention de cette décision pour introduire sa requête. Celle-ci devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour méconnaissance de l’exigence d’épuisement préalable des voies de recours interne posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. Mais, en l’espèce, compte tenu du délai d’un an et sept mois qui s’était écoulé entre l’introduction de la réclamation du requérant, le 5 juin 2020, et le dépôt de sa requête, le 7 février 2022, et du fait que son conseil avait procédé, en vain, à des relances auprès du Directeur général, le Tribunal considère que le requérant était confronté à une paralysie de la procédure de recours interne lui permettant de le saisir directement. En effet, en vertu de la jurisprudence du Tribunal, un requérant est recevable à saisir directement le Tribunal d’une requête dirigée contre la décision initiale qu’il entend contester lorsque les organes compétents ne sont pas en mesure de statuer sur son recours interne dans un délai raisonnable au regard des circonstances de l’espèce, à condition qu’il ait vainement entrepris ce que l’on pouvait attendre de sa part en vue d’accélérer la procédure interne et qu’il ressorte de la situation constatée que l’autorité de recours n’était effectivement pas à même de rendre sa décision définitive dans un tel délai raisonnable (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4660, au considérant 2, 4271, au considérant 5, 4268, aux considérants 10 et 11, 4200, au considérant 3, 3558, au considérant 9, 2039, au considérant 4, ou 1486, au considérant 11).»
(Voir également le jugement 4819, au considérant 3.)
Cette jurisprudence s’applique mutatis mutandis à la présente affaire.
En l’espèce, compte tenu du délai de plus de deux ans qui s’était écoulé entre l’introduction de la réclamation de la requérante […] et le dépôt de sa requête […] et du fait que son conseil avait procédé, en vain, à de nombreuses relances auprès notamment du Directeur général ou du président de la Commission paritaire des litiges, le Tribunal considère que la requérante était confrontée à une paralysie de la procédure de recours interne lui permettant de saisir directement le Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4819, 4820
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit;
Judgment 5029
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019 et le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Consideration 8
Extract:
En vertu d’une jurisprudence constante, un requérant est recevable à saisir directement le Tribunal d’une requête dirigée contre la décision initiale qu’il entend contester lorsque les organes compétents ne sont pas en mesure de statuer sur son recours interne dans un délai raisonnable au regard des circonstances de l’espèce, à condition qu’il ait vainement entrepris ce que l’on pouvait attendre de sa part en vue d’accélérer la procédure interne et qu’il ressorte de la situation constatée que l’autorité de recours n’était effectivement pas à même de rendre sa décision définitive dans un tel délai raisonnable (voir notamment les jugements 4820, au considérant 6, 4819, au considérant 3, 4660, au considérant 2, 4271, au considérant 5, 4268, aux considérants 10 et 11, 4200, au considérant 3, 3558, au considérant 9, 2039, au considérant 4, ou 1486, au considérant 11).
En l’espèce, un délai d’un peu plus d’an s’est écoulé entre l’introduction de la réclamation […] et le dépôt de la requête […]. Entre-temps, […] la chef de l’Unité des Ressources humaines et services […] avait accusé réception de la réclamation et l’avait transmise à la Commission paritaire des litiges, tout en avisant le requérant qu’un «retard modéré» était susceptible de se produire dans le traitement de celle-ci.
Il ressort du dossier que l’intéressé ne s’est, à aucun moment, enquis de l’état d’avancement du traitement de son recours interne […]. Le courriel […] adressé par son conseil au Directeur général pour dénoncer ce qu’il considérait être des manquements généralisés de la part de l’Agence quant au traitement des plaintes pour harcèlement moral et des réclamations y relatives, ne mentionnait nullement la réclamation du 25 février 2021 ni même la situation individuelle de l’intéressé, de sorte qu’il ne peut aucunement être assimilé à une relance de sa part concernant sa propre réclamation.
Dès lors, le Tribunal considère que l’intéressé, qui n’a pas «vainement entrepris ce que l’on pouvait attendre de sa part en vue d’accélérer la procédure interne», n’était pas, au moment où il a déposé la présente requête, confronté à une paralysie de la procédure de recours interne lui permettant de saisir directement le Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2039, 3558, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660, 4819, 4820
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit;
Judgment 4911
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests that her medical condition be recognized as service-incurred with all legal effects flowing therefrom.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Firstly, the Tribunal considers that the complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute is misplaced. It is clear from her submissions that several responses were received from the Administration […] within the sixty-day period following the notification of her claim of 15 June 2023. Whilst none of those responses conveyed a final decision, they were sufficient to forestall an implied rejection that could be impugned under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4621, consideration 2, 4620, consideration 2, 4494, consideration 4, 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5).
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, 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 4760, consideration 2, 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, considerations 3 to 5).
[…] Having not followed the internal procedure, she has failed to exhaust the available internal means of redress.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 3975, 4174, 4494, 4517, 4620, 4621, 4760
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
date of filing; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;
Judgment 4910
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed her third complaint on 23 September 2023, that is to say 113 days after she received notification, on 2 June 2023, of the 11 May 2023 decision.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
date of filing; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;
Judgment 4905
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to set the rate of deterioration of physical health resulting from an occupational accident at only 15 per cent and, consequently, to award him the sum of 11,874.60 Swiss francs as an indemnity for deterioration of physical health.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that Chapter VI of the CERN Staff Rules and Regulations confers the right of appeal solely on “members of the personnel”, which, as the Tribunal has already held, does not include former members of the personnel (see Judgment 1399, consideration 10). The complainant, as a former member of the personnel, was not therefore required to exhaust the internal remedies and could file a complaint directly with the Tribunal (see Judgments 3915, consideration 3, 3679, consideration 4, 3505, considerations 3 and 4, and 3074, consideration 13, as well as aforementioned Judgment 1399, considerations 7 and 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1399, 3074, 3505, 3679, 3915
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; former official;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Insofar as the complaint is directed against the decision of the Director General to dismiss the complainant’s first complaint for moral harassment against Mr P.H. as unfounded, the Tribunal notes the following:
(a) Where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent internal appeal body for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon the claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3715, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
(b) Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant should have filed a complaint before the Tribunal within 90 days from the expiry of the four-month time limit for the Administration to respond to his internal complaint, even if the matter had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes. The present complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable as time-barred under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, combined with Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(c) However, in this case, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was misled by the Organisation when it indicated to him that, since his internal complaint had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes, he had, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law on the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, to await the final decision of the Director General before being able to file a complaint with the Tribunal. By so doing, the Organisation overlooked the fact that, pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, failure by the Director General to respond to an internal complaint within four months from the date on which it was lodged shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, which may be impugned before the Tribunal. There is no need to declare the complaint irreceivable as time-barred, insofar as it is directed against an implied decision to reject from the Director General. To rule otherwise would amount to unduly depriving the complainant of his right to refer the matter to the Tribunal solely due to the conduct of the Organisation.
(d) The Tribunal observes that, while the complainant’s failure to comply with the 90-day time limit to file a complaint with the Tribunal is recognized above as admissible due to the fact that he was wrongly informed by the Organisation that he had to await an express decision, the complainant did not wait for this decision to be issued before filing his complaint. The complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, in this case, taking into account the period of one year and seven months that had elapsed between 5 June 2020, when the complainant filed his internal complaint, and 7 February 2022, when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, and the fact that his counsel had followed up, to no avail, with the Director General, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was faced with a paralysis of the internal appeal procedure that would allow him to proceed directly to it. Under the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant is entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal against the initial decision which she or he intends to challenge where the competent bodies are not able to determine the internal appeal within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, provided that she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a final decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 4660, consideration 2, 4271, consideration 5, 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, or 1486, consideration 11).
(e) In addition, the Tribunal notes that a final decision was ultimately taken by the Director General on 12 May 2022, as was the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes relating thereto, and that that decision was issued in the course of proceedings. Since the Tribunal has the complete dossier in its possession and the parties have had the opportunity to comment fully in their written submissions on the express decision to reject the complainant’s internal complaint of 5 June 2020, and thus on the decision to reject the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., it considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the internal complaint as being directed against the latter decision of 12 May 2022 (see in particular, for similar cases, Judgments 4769, consideration 3, 4768, consideration 3, 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
The present complaint is, accordingly, receivable insofar as it challenges the lawfulness of the Director General’s decision of 12 May 2022 to reject, as unfounded, the first moral harassment complaint directed against Mr P.H. It will therefore be examined from this standpoint by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
(a) Where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent internal appeal body for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3715, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
(b) Pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant should have filed a complaint before the Tribunal within 90 days as from the expiry of the four-month time limit available to the Administration to reply to his internal complaint, even though the matter had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes. The present complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable as time-barred under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, in conjunction with Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(c) However, in the present case, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was misled by the Organisation when it indicated to him that, since his internal complaint had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes, he had, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law on the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, to await the final decision of the Director General before being able to file a complaint with the Tribunal. By so doing, the Organisation failed to take into account that, pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, failure by the Director General to respond to an internal complaint within four months from the date on which it was lodged is deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, which may be impugned before the Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no need to declare the complaint irreceivable as time-barred, insofar as it is directed against an implicit decision to dismiss by the Director General. To rule otherwise would amount to unduly depriving the complainant of his right to refer the matter to the Tribunal solely due to the conduct of the Organisation.
(d) The Tribunal observes that while the complainant’s failure to comply with the 90-day time limit to file a complaint with the Tribunal is recognized above as admissible due to the fact that he was wrongly informed by the Organisation that he had to await an express decision, the complainant did not wait for this decision to be issued before filing his complaint. The complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, in this case, taking into account the period of more than two years that had elapsed between 31 July 2019, when the complainant lodged his internal complaint, and 13 August 2021, when he filed his complaint, and the fact that his counsel had followed up on several occasions, to no avail, with the Director General and the Chairperson of the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was faced with a paralysis of the internal appeals procedure that would allow him to come directly to it. Under the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant is entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal against the initial decision which she or he intends to challenge where the competent bodies are not able to determine the internal appeal within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, provided that she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a final decision within a reasonable time (see, in particular, Judgments 4660, consideration 2, 4271, consideration 5, 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, or 1486, consideration 11).
(e) In addition, the Tribunal notes that a final decision was ultimately taken by the Director General on 17 February 2022 and that that decision was issued in the course of proceedings. Since the Tribunal has the complete file in its possession and the parties have had the opportunity to comment fully in their written submissions on that decision to expressly dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint of 31 July 2019, it considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the internal complaint as being directed against the decision of 17 February 2022 (see in particular, for similar cases, Judgments 4769, consideration 3, 4768, consideration 3, 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660, 4768, 4769
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit;
Judgment 4818
138th Session, 2024
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision denying her and her dependents an individual medical insurance plan following her separation from service.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
According to [Judgment 4200, consideration 3], the Tribunal’s case law establishes that delays in the organisation’s internal procedures do not necessarily mean that the appeal process is paralyzed. The Tribunal emphasizes the need for the complainant to demonstrate that the delay is “inordinate and inexcusable”, that she or he has made every effort to expedite the internal procedure, to no avail, and that the circumstances show that the appeal body is unable to reach a decision within a reasonable time.
Upon close examination, the Tribunal finds no evidence in the record suggesting that the internal appeal process was “necessarily paralyzed”. The communications during the COVID-19 pandemic indicate that the SAC was responsive and operational. The complainant was properly informed of the time frame, that is, the stay of proceedings on her appeal until 23 May 2020 due to the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding the complainant’s inquiry of 12 June 2020 as to whether the stay of proceedings on her appeal had been lifted, the SAC promptly replied to her on 18 June that it had recently resumed operations, indicating that the appeal body would reach a decision within a reasonable time after the resumption of operations. At the date on which her third complaint was filed, the SAC’s delay in submitting its report to the Executive Director could not be considered as “inordinate and inexcusable”. The complainant’s third complaint is therefore premature and must be dismissed as irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4200
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4814
137th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the subject of an investigation into allegations of harassment and abuse of authority, alleges that she received no reply, within the sixty-day time limit, to the claim submitted to the Director-General regarding “multiple conflicts of interest” of the Internal Oversight Service.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that procedural steps taken in the course of a process leading to a final decision cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal, though they may be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against that final decision (see Judgments 4704, consideration 5, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14). In the present case, the refusal to act on the request for the IOS’s divestiture is part of the process leading to a decision resulting from the investigation report (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3958, consideration 15). Accordingly, any alleged irregularities in the investigation could only be raised in the context of a complaint directed against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, provided that she first exhausted the internal remedies available to her, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3958, 3961, 4404, 4704
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; step in the procedure; summary procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Firstly, the Tribunal considers that the complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute is misplaced. It is clear from her submissions that the request made by her counsels in their letter of 1 December 2022 addressed to the Director-General, which had been submitted for the first time on 18 November 2022, had already been considered and explicitly rejected by the DDG on 25 and 29 November 2022. The fact that this request was subsequently escalated to the Director-General does not alter the conclusion that the Administration had already taken a decision on it, thus excluding the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; summary procedure;
Judgment 4813
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of Interpol whose fixed-term appointment was terminated during the probationary period due to unsatisfactory performance, asks the Tribunal to order his reinstatement or to award him compensation.
Considerations 3 & 5
Extract:
It is firmly established in the Tribunal’s case law that, in order to comply with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations, the complainant must follow the available internal appeal procedures (see, for example, Judgments 4634, consideration 2, 3749, consideration 2, and 3296, consideration 10). The case law further states that a staff member of an international organisation cannot of her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4056, consideration 4, 3458, consideration 7, 3190, consideration 9, and 2811, considerations 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).
[…]
In the present case, […] the complainant’s request for review was rejected by a decision of 6 October 2022, which then became the subject of his internal appeal. The complainant filed the present complaint on 15 July 2023, prior to the completion of the [Joint Appeals Committee]’s proceedings and, hence, while his appeal was still pending. Thus, the 6 October 2022 decision is not a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute as the internal means of redress have not been exhausted. The decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment could only be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against the final decision taken by the Secretary General following the delivery of the [Joint Appeals Committee]’s consultative opinion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2811, 3190, 3296, 3458, 3749, 4056, 4634
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; summary procedure;
Judgment 4812
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests moral and material damages for the harm she allegedly suffered as a result of her supervisor’s behaviour and the unduly extended length of time of the investigation.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly provides that “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it, the person concerned may have recourse to the Tribunal and her or his complaint shall be receivable in the same manner as a complaint against a final decision”.
In the present case, […] the complainant’s claim to be granted redress for the actions of her supervisor and the time taken to complete the investigation was rejected by a decision of 9 November 2021, which then became the subject of her internal appeal. Thus, although there may have been some delay on the part of the Director-General in taking the final decision on that appeal, she is obviously not in the situation contemplated by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; summary procedure;
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 4
Extract:
While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, allows for direct recourse to the Tribunal “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”, this paragraph must be read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article VII. According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It follows that the Tribunal cannot hear a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[W]hile a complaint made directly to the Tribunal is indeed usually irreceivable, the case law allows for an exception to be made to that rule where a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust internal remedies has the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. A complainant is thus entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal against the initial decision which she or he intends to challenge where the competent bodies are not able to determine the internal appeal within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, provided that she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a final decision within a reasonable time (see, in particular, Judgments 4271, consideration 5, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, and 1486, consideration 11).
However, the Tribunal considers that, as the complainant rightly submits, the conditions allowing this jurisprudential exception to be applied are satisfied in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 3558, 4200, 4271
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 4651
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
