Judgment No. 3193
1. The Director-General's decision of 27 May 2010 is set aside.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 10,000 Swiss francs.
3. It shall also pay her 1,000 francs in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.
"In a case where a complainant establishes that the disputed decision involved an abuse of power, the appropriate relief is often to set aside the decision. Indeed, such a decision should not stand in the face of the conclusion that it involved an abuse of power. [However], in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 496
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; moral injury; transfer; post classification; reassignment; organisation's interest; misuse of authority; moral damages
"In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; discretion; executive head; organisation's interest; misuse of authority; purpose