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

Judgment No. 2715

Decision

1. The decision of the Secretary General of 10 August 2004 to terminate the complainant's appointment and that of 5 July 2006, inasmuch as it confirmed the former decision, are set aside.
2. The Organization shall pay the complainant compensation equivalent to six months' emoluments, in other words two months in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the decision of 5 July 2006, in accordance with the conditions stipulated in consideration 12 of this judgment.
3. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 5,000 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.


Consideration 3

Extract:

The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal

Keywords

complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; grounds; receivability; time limit; correction of complaint; delay; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; iloat statute; flaw; consequence


Consideration 4

Extract:

"[T]he complaint incorrectly states that it seeks the setting aside of the 'Organization's decision of 5 July 2004' to end the complainant's employment contract, whereas the Secretary General's decision to that effect is in fact dated 10 August 2004, and 5 July 2004 is the date of the Administration Committee's opinion, which is not challengeable. However, the complainant's intention, which must be ascertained without taking into account this purely factual error, was plainly to challenge the Secretary General's decision of 10 August 2004."

Keywords

material error; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; complainant; internal appeals body; report; interpretation; termination; application for quashing; executive head; date; purpose


Consideration 13

Extract:

The Secretary General of the Organization decided to follow the Appeals Board's recommendations and thus to award the complainant compensation. By a letter of 2 October 2006 he notified the complainant that he nevertheless intended to make payment of the compensation subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce the exercise of all means of appeal against the WCO. "[T]he Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the Secretary General's letter of 2 October 2006 contained an unlawful clause which should definitely be censured, in that its purpose was to make the actual payment of the sum in question subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce all means of appeals.
An international organisation commits a serious breach of the general principles of law by violating, through such conduct, international civil servants' right of appeal, especially to the Tribunal."

Keywords

complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; complainant; international civil servant; internal appeals body; recommendation; waiver of right of appeal; right of appeal; iloat; general principle; breach; provision; allowance; executive head; flaw; acceptance; condition; payment



 
Last updated: 05.03.2009 ^ top