ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > right

Judgment No. 123

Decision

THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

Consideration 3

Extract:

In approving the complainant's request for application for repatriation grant, the organisation misinterpreted the material provisions. Payment to the complainant was approved ex gratia. It was however subject to a provision which the organisation "implicitly waived [...] by refraining from claiming repayment of this amount in the course of the present procedure. [The] complainant's right to keep the money he has received is thus not in question."

Keywords

recovery of overpayment; repatriation allowance; unjust enrichment; ex gratia

Consideration 2

Extract:

The complainant gave as his permanent residence a city in the United States. This might mean either that he was recruited there or that he was supposed to spend his home leave there. "Being open to interpretation in either of these two ways, this is thus not decisive. What is decisive, however, is the fact that [the] complainant does not deny at the time of his recruitment that he was [...] in [...] the country of his duty station." It follows that he was locally recruited and that he is not entitled to claim payment of his travel expenses or a repatriation grant under the material provisions.

Keywords

duty station; appointment; residence; repatriation allowance; travel expenses; right

Consideration 2

Extract:

"The Tribunal considers that within the meaning of [the applicable provision] two years of continuous service must be interpreted as a period of service as a staff member covered by the Staff Regulations and Rules." The complainant was so covered only by some of his contracts.

Keywords

time limit; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; interpretation; right

Consideration 3

Extract:

In approving the complainant's application for repatriation grant, the organisation misinterpreted the regulations. Its approval was conditional. The complainant had to prove that he had made definite travel arrangements, but did not do so. "[T]he [organisation] did not violate any law by withdrawing its approval, given in error, before any action had been taken upon it and before the stipulated proviso had been fulfilled, and without any costs having been incurred by the complainant."

Keywords

withdrawal of decision; allowance; travel expenses; flaw; mistake of law; acceptance; condition

Consideration 1

Extract:

One copy of the impugned decision arrived at the usual home address of the complainant on 27 June; a second copy arrived at his business address on 28 June. "[B]y sending two copies of its decision the [organisation] sought to ensure that at least one of them would reach its destination. It therefore admitted that if one copy were to go a stray the time limit of 90 days would run from the date of receipt of the second." The complainant might have kept only one of the two copies, that which arrived on 28 June. "[I]t is consonant with the rules of good faith to hold that the time limit began to run from 28 June, and [...] that the complaint is receivable."

Keywords

complaint; decision; receivability of the complaint; date of notification; start of time limit; good faith



 
Last updated: 28.09.2017 ^ top