Judgment No. 2222
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT THE SUM OF 5,000 EUROS IN COMPENSATION FOR MORAL INJURY.
3. IT SHALL ALSO PAY HIM 3,000 EUROS IN COSTS.
4. ALL OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
"Referring to the Tribunal's case law, in particular Judgments 70 and 1543, the defendant submits that the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, does not extend to disputes regarding the Director-General's discretion to waive diplomatic immunity. It is worth noting that the complainant does not in fact [...] challenge the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity in itself. He rather challenges the circumstances in which that decision was taken, which in his view violated his contractual rights or those arising from the general principles of law which should be observed by international organisations. Since the case law referred to by the defendant does not apply, the Tribunal is of the view that only a consideration of the merits of the case may show whether the complainant's allegations are well founded."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 70, 1543
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; complainant; organisation; receivability of the complaint; competence of tribunal; judgment of the tribunal; iloat; case law; general principle; organisation's duties; breach; terms of appointment; rebuttal; privileges and immunities; waiver of immunity; judicial review; discretion; executive head; condition; right
"The decisive factor behind the request for the complainant's diplomatic immunity to be waived [...] was not brought to the complainant's knowledge. That might have given him a chance to identify his accusers and, if need be, armed with that knowledge, to explain to his hierarchical superiors the reasons for the serious charges brought against him, before the decision was taken to waive his diplomatic immunity [...] by virtue of the right to information recognised by the tribunal's case law, particularly Judgment 1756, the organization, which held information that was so important to the complainant, had an obligation to bring it to his knowledge. It may be concluded from the above that the organization violated the complainant's right to be informed and injured his dignity and reputation."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; moral injury; complainant; judgment of the tribunal; case law; right to reply; organisation's duties; duty to inform; respect for dignity; breach; privileges and immunities; waiver of immunity; supervisor; consequence; elements; request by a party; right
A dissenting opinion by Judge Rondon de Sanso is attached to this judgment.