Judgment No. 2096
Decision
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE OPCW SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 40,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN DAMAGES UNDER ALL HEADS.
3. IT SHALL PAY HER 6,000 EUROS IN COSTS.
4. THE OPCW'S COUNTERCLAIM IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The [contract renewal] board was under the obligation to take into account performance appraisal reports [...]. The [complainant's] performance appraisal report for 1999 had not been completed for submission to the board. Yet, before a decision is taken not to renew a contract, precedent has it that it is a fundamental obligation to examine the staff member's performance appraisal. Failure to comply with that obligation constitutes a procedural flaw as it has the effect of excluding an essential fact from consideration (see, in particular, Judgment 1525 [...] and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1525
Keywords
advisory body; delay; iloat; case law; organisation's duties; performance report; contract; non-renewal of contract; disregard of essential fact; procedural flaw; effect
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant seeks her reinstatement, but the Tribunal finds this remedy inappropriate, particularly since the post that she held has been abolished. It is therefore bound to award damages in compensation for the material and moral prejudice arising out of the unlawful decision not to renew her fixed-term contract. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the complainant was not entitled to the automatic renewal of her contract, the Tribunal sets the compensation due at 40,000 United States dollars.
Keywords
reinstatement; compensation; material damages
| 
