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

Judgment No. 1242

Decision

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL'S DECISION OF 10 FEBRUARY 1992 IS SET ASIDE INSOFAR AS IT REFUSES TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINANT AS FROM 16 JUNE 1991.
2. THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR A NEW DECISION ON THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT.
3. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE FURTHER YEAR'S SALARY AND ALLOWANCES IN DAMAGES FOR ALL FORMS OF INJURY HE HAS SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO EXECUTE JUDGMENT 1154.
4. IT SHALL PAY HIM 10,000 FRENCH FRANCS IN COSTS.

Considerations 4 and 5

Extract:

The complainant submits that the organization did not do its utmost to reinstate him in execution of Judgment 1154. WIPO's letter "does not substantiate the contention that it had. it simply conveys the Director General's decision 'not to extend [the complainant]'s appointment'. It says nothing of any attempts to find him a suitable position and thereby discharge its primary obligation under Judgment 1154. [...] The Director General had the duty to justify his decision by explaining why it was impossible to reinstate the complainant [...] only in its reply to this complaint does the organization maintain that 'there was no possibility of reinstating the complainant since there was no suitable post to which he could be appointed given his qualifications'."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154

Keywords

application for execution; complaint allowed; duty to substantiate decision; organisation; res judicata; tribunal; judgment of the tribunal; decision quashed; submissions; reply; good faith; organisation's duties; reinstatement; refusal



 
Last updated: 22.11.2017 ^ top