Judgment No. 4025
Decision
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. The complainant shall pay the IAEA costs in the amount of 100 euros within sixty days of the date of the public delivery of this judgment.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision rejecting her request for payment of interest on the lump sum paid to her in respect of her separation entitlements.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
payment; interest on termination entitlements; complaint dismissed
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant’s assertion that interest began to accrue on the amount due for the separation entitlements is rejected. In Judgment 3650, under 8, the Tribunal stated:
“One specific argument advanced by the complainant was based on Judgment 2282 in which the Tribunal ordered that the IAEA pay the disputed terminal allowances plus interest from the date on which each claim for terminal allowance had been filed by the complainant. In this matter, the complainant noted that under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules there was no entitlement to interest in relation to the payment of terminal allowances. However the Tribunal notes that that case involved the awarding of pre-judgment interest from the date the cause of action accrued. This is a power not infrequently exercised by courts. However Judgment 2282 does not support a proposition that a right to payment of an amount under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules carries with it a right to payment of interest from the time the amount was claimed to the time it was paid.”
Moreover, the complainant’s reliance on statements made in Judgments 2782, under 6(a), and 874, under 3, to support her assertion is misplaced. The facts in those two cases are materially different from those in the present case and, as such, the statements relied upon have no application to the facts in this case.
[T]he complainant submits that “as a general principle interest should be paid on past due sums or, as in this case, payments made without any just reason for delay”. She points out that as the IAEA was able to provide her with an estimate of the amount of the separation entitlements in March 2013, the IAEA had ample time to calculate the final amount of the separation entitlements by the date of her separation and those entitlements should have been paid on that date or at the latest on 6 August 2013. This statement is purely conjecture on the part of the complainant. It ignores the possibility of intervening matters that may affect the final calculation, the complexity of the calculation and, importantly, the fact that the calculation cannot be made until the clearance process is completed. Although the Administration provided the complainant with the relevant clearance certificate on 4 March 2013 and asked for its return before 31 July 2013, the complainant returned the certificate on 7 August 2013. Further, given that the entitlement to the payment of separation entitlements does not arise until the date of the separation from service, the fact that the Administration gave the complainant an estimate of the amount of separation entitlements is irrelevant in terms of the question of unreasonable delay. Furthermore, in this case there was no delay in the payment of the separation entitlements.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 874, 2282, 2782, 3650
Keywords
interest on termination entitlements
Considerations 6 and 9-12
Extract:
The IAEA submits that the complaint is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of process. It requests that the Tribunal order the complainant to pay the costs of the proceedings including all filing fees. [...]
At this juncture, it is observed that bad faith cannot be automatically inferred solely on the basis of the filing of a large number of complaints by a litigant. This is well illustrated by a review of the twelve complaints referenced by the IAEA, one of which is the present complaint. The complainant was successful in six complaints and was awarded damages and costs; four complaints were dismissed; and one was withdrawn.
In Judgment 3568, under 5, the Tribunal framed relevant considerations in the awarding of costs against a complainant in the following terms:
“The Tribunal may indeed award costs against the authors of frivolous, vexatious and repeated complaints which absorb its resources and those of the defendant organisations and hamper the Tribunal’s ability to deal expeditiously with other complaints. Any such award must, however, remain exceptional, since it is essential that international civil servants’ access to an independent and impartial judicial body is not impeded by the prospect of an adverse award of costs if their complaint were to prove unfounded (see Judgments 1962, under 4, and 3196, under 7).”
A review of the complainant’s pleadings alone reflects a case that obviously had no possibility of success and is clearly frivolous. The complainant did not advance any positions that were arguable and relied on cases that are plainly distinguishable on the facts and a judgment that was overturned in relevant part on appeal.
Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed and the counterclaim for costs will be allowed. As this is the first occasion in the series of complaints against the IAEA in which the Tribunal will make an award of costs against this complainant, the amount will be nominal. The complainant will be ordered to pay the IAEA 100 euros in costs within sixty days of the date of the public delivery of this judgment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1962, 3196, 3568
Keywords
vexatious complaint; counterclaim
|
