ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > administrative decision

Judgment No. 4078

Decision

1. The UPUís application for interpretation and review is dismissed.
2. The UPU shall pay the complainant 5 per cent interest in accordance with consideration 23 of the judgment.
3. The UPU shall pay the complainant 15,000 Swiss francs in moral damages.
4. The UPU shall also pay her 7,000 Swiss francs in costs.
5. All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed.

Summary

The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; fixed-term; abolition of post; termination; application filed by the organisation

Consideration 8

Extract:

As the two applications concern the same judgment, the Tribunal finds it convenient to join them in order to render one judgment.

Keywords

joinder

Consideration 8

Extract:

The Tribunal finds the written submissions to be sufficient to reach a reasoned decision and therefore denies the complainantís request for oral hearings.

Keywords

oral proceedings

Consideration 9

Extract:

According to the Tribunalís case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3929.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3929, 3984

Keywords

application for interpretation; receivability of application

Consideration 10

Extract:

[I]t is well settled that the Tribunalís judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

Keywords

application for review; res judicata

Consideration 14

Extract:

It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunalís Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
ďWho took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunalís competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.Ē

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

Keywords

receivability of the complaint; final decision; ratione materiae; administrative decision

Consideration 22

Extract:

The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620

Keywords

application for review; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; suspension of the execution of a judgment

Consideration 24

Extract:

The delay in fully executing Judgment 3929 has caused the complainant moral injury. In awarding moral damages, the Tribunal takes into particular account the following: the duration of the delay and the fact that there was no need to seek a decision from the Council of Administration to authorize the execution of a judgment of the Tribunal, particularly when the budget was already approved for payments of awards.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3929

Keywords

moral injury; execution of judgment; delay in payment; moral damages

Consideration 25

Extract:

The complainant seeks an apology from the organization by order of the Tribunal. This claim is rejected as such an order is outside the Tribunalís competence (see, for example, Judgment 2742, consideration 44, or Judgment 3597, consideration 10).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3597

Keywords

competence of tribunal; apology



 
Last updated: 10.04.2019 ^ top