Judgment No. 2190
Decision
1. THE WHO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT, IN ADDITION TO THE COMPENSATION IT HAS AGREED TO PAY HIM, THE SUM OF 5,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS.
2. IT SHALL PAY HIM 2,000 DOLLARS IN COSTS.
3. THE COMPLAINANT'S REMAINING CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
4. THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE IS REJECTED.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The organization has a discretion to assess, in the context of its relations with a Member State, which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether it is appropriate to lift the immunity from legal process of its employees (see in this respect Judgments 933 and 1543)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 933, 1543
Keywords
organisation; tribunal; competence of tribunal; member state; privileges and immunities; waiver of immunity; judicial review; discretion
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is incomprehensible that no internal administrative investigation was conducted following an accident which involved a [...] vehicle [of the organization] driven by an employee of the organization in the context of an official mission, and which caused the death of two passengers, one of whom was a [...] staff member [of the organization], as well as the serious injuries suffered by the complainant. The fact that the Namibian authorities opened their own enquiry could not in any way exempt the organization from ascertaining whether the condition of the vehicle, the preparation of the mission and, more generally, the circumstances of the accident revealed any administrative failure, the consequences of which it would have a duty to bear. [...] There is no evidence to suggest that any internal enquiry whatsoever was conducted in connection with this accident. This failure caused the complainant an injury which the Tribunal considers to be equitably compensated by an award of 5,000 United States dollars."
Keywords
injury; moral injury; inquiry; member state; organisation's duties; misconduct; professional accident; service-incurred; omission; material damages; investigation
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's claim that the Tribunal should order the organization to undertake disciplinary investigations into the actions of [...] the staff member who allegedly entered a 'frivolous and dilatory' plea of irreceivability before the [Headquarters] Board [of Appeal], clearly cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, which has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against international organisations, let alone to cast judgment on the means of defence used on behalf of such organisations in the context of internal appeal proceedings or litigation."
Keywords
claim; organisation; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; competence of tribunal; inquiry; reply; right to reply; disciplinary procedure; investigation
| 
