Latest news: 

After the High Court's decision (cf. here below) the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO did not extend my term for my rejoinder in re AT 5-4532 related to occupational illness - in any case I did not receive any reply to my e-mail of 27 March 2017 with my request of an extension, among others, cf. the first document here above, despite my chronic illness (cf. explanation here below). Yet the EPO's two professional lawyers were granted an extension of 60 days - where's the equal treatment of the parties?

In January 2017 the High Court of The Netherlands (Hoge Raad) maintained the international organisation's immunity, despite severe human rights violations. Contrary to what the judges ruled a complainant has no means of accelerating a trial with the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO - in any case Articles 15 and 7bis of the Tribunal's rules cannot be considered such means in "normal" lawsuits (cases of conflict), cf. http://www.ilo.org/tribunal/about-us/WCMS_249195/lang--en/index.htm . The two Articles were translated and interpreted wrongly by the Attorney General of the High Court - which the complainant's Borgersbrief indicated, yet the judges seem to have ignored it. They went even further by ruling that the absence of such acceleration means is not a reason to remove the organisation's immunity - that not only the complainant's career was destroyed by the decision impugned, but also her health permanently harmed, did apparently not matter (I wonder in which case the organisation's immunity would be disproportionate then....any clue??).

In my view this outcome establishes a practically absolute immunity of international organisations whose management has thereby been placed above the law in The Netherlands ("1984" by George Orwell brought into practice?).

This way and partly due to my occupational disease my own professional career is likely to have been ruined for good, despite my long-term high-level performance, my knowledge and sound experience in my profession and my technical and scientific skills, cf. extract of my staff report 2005-2007, tweet of 20-1-2020 on my Twitter account https://twitter.com/AnetteKoch, and recommendation letter here above.

For explanation:

As an employee of an organisation recognizing the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO (hereafter: the Tribunal) , it is my undeniable right under Article 5.1 of the Tribunal's Rules to plead my own case, cf. http://www.ilo.org/tribunal/about-us/WCMS_249195/lang--en/index.htm , despite my chronic illness. I also successfully pleaded on behalf of my colleagues as a staff representative earlier, meaning: I am fully able to do it, if allowed extensions of my procedural terms in view of my physical impairment.

I have compelling medical reasons to be granted extensions of my terms by the Tribunal to make proper use of my rights under Article 5.1 of the Tribunal's Rules and of my rights under Article 6 ECHR, cf. the recent OH Physician's letter of 16 August 2016 as attached/uploaded.

Yet the Tribunal repeatedly refused me extensions, cf. e-mail exchange with the Tribunal restricting my terms to 30 days and implicit refusal of extension in case AT 5-3829, as attached/uploaded, thereby causing me pain and physical harm. I mentioned this fact during my accelerated proceedings under national law (during the court's session for pleading - "pleidooi"), yet my then lawyer submitted the evidence too late despite my request and reminder to submit it in time. Thus the defendant objected to its belated submission, and the Appeals Court of The Hague did not allow it.

On the other hand the defendant organisation is granted long procedural terms up to 214 days for their reply by the Tribunal.

By e-mail of 1 November 2016 to me the Tribunal upheld its unreasoned decision of 4 May 2014 to limit my procedural terms to 30 days and wrote literally (citation from e-mail):

"I refer to your e-mail of 30 September 2016.

 

               You request below is rejected.

 

               Your initial request had been rejected by the President of the Tribunal pursuant to Article 14 of the
Tribunal’s Rules.  There is no appeal against that decision.

 

               The extension of the time period set forth in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules is within the
discretionary power of the Tribunal, or its President between the sessions, and no complainant can rely on a “practice” in
application of that discretionary power."

The "practice" is mentioned, because I had reminded the Tribunal of their practice to swiftly extend procedural terms in other cases and on the defendant's request.

At the same time the defendant's immunity was upheld by the Appeals Court of The Hague, based on an extremely deficient motivation, in my view. 

Recently the Admin. Tribunal of the ILO allowed the international organisation a term of 92(!!) days to file their reply in urgent case AT 5-4384, cf. here below (3rd to 5th annexes from above). - I consider this unequal treatment of the parties. - Moreover, neither Tribunal nor the organisation treat this urgent case with the necessary promptness.

In its 123rd session the Tribunal issued judgement no. 3785: Fritz No. 2 v. EPO, cf. http://www.ilo.org/tribunal/news/WCMS_534995/lang--en/index.htm, deciding that the composition of the organisation's Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) is unlawful, as none of its members has been nominated by the Central Staff Committee. The case is sent back to the organisation for examination by an Appeals Committee composed in accordance with the applicable rules.

Let me first mention that, in general, this judgement is very good news, as the IAC was indeed unlawfully composed, also in some of my cases, and the Tribunal was fully right in confirming this.

Yet for me personally the purpose of this judgement may be limited: if my cases are referred back to the organisation, the organisation may delay them internally again (only to eventually reject them again). The organisation delayed several of my appeals cases up to 7(!!) years before, cf. the upper two attachments on the rejections of 86/07, 89/07 and 181/08, among others. The last two digits denote the year of submission, i.e. 2007 and 2008, resp. These cases were rejected by the organisation in 2014 (the IAC was still formally lawfully composed then, by the way...moreover, the Administration hardly ever follows the IAC's advice, unless it is negative for staff).

In urgent cases justice delayed is justice denied, and the Tribunal does not issue any interim injunctions unfortunately, cf. its Judgement no. 2623 under cons. 2, last sentence, on http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=2623&p_language_code=EN