Judgment No. 4517
Decision
1. The complaint is dismissed as irreceivable.
2. The complainant may refer the matter to the Appeal Board of ITU under the conditions set out in consideration 8 of the judgment.
Summary
The complainant seeks restoration of her entitlements to healthcare and health insurance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
duty of care; former official; medical insurance
Consideration 3
Extract:
Contrary to what the complainant contends, the internal remedies provided for in Chapter XI of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules are available to former staff members. While it is true that, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2892, considerations 6 to 8, and reaffirmed in several more judgments, only serving staff members previously had recourse to these remedies, in 2016 Staff Regulation 11.1 was amended specifically to extend access to former staff members. The previous case law is therefore obsolete [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892
Keywords
internal appeal; former official
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, must be read in the light of paragraph 1 of that article and are not applicable unless, as required under paragraph 1, the official concerned has first exhausted the internal remedies available to her or him (see, in particular, Judgment 185 and Judgment 2631, considerations 3 to 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185, 2631
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; direct appeal to tribunal
Consideration 6
Extract:
Although it is true that the request was sent to the Director of the Human Resources Management Department and not to the Secretary-General as Staff Rule 11.1.2 requires, under the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which rules of procedure must not be construed too pedantically, an internal appeal submitted to the wrong authority is not irreceivable on that account and it is for that authority, in such circumstances, simply to forward it to the one which is competent to hear it (see, for example, Judgments 1832, consideration 6, 3027, consideration 7, or 3424, consideration 8(b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3027, 3424
Keywords
internal appeal; duty to forward appeal to competent body
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]n the very specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that, in view of the complainant’s advanced age and frail health, which plainly make it difficult in practice for her to access information concerning her rights, and the fact that, in this context, she could legitimately be unaware of the – still relatively recent – revision of the Staff Regulations extending the scope of the internal appeal procedure to former staff members, it was incumbent on ITU to ensure that the complainant was duly informed of the remedies and time limits for challenging the impugned decision, at least as from receipt of the abovementioned letter of 27 June 2020. Although the Tribunal’s case law does not ordinarily place such an obligation on organisations, ITU’s duty of care towards this former staff member required it to provide her with the necessary information on this point (for a comparable case involving a failure to state the means of redress and applicable time limits in the notification of a decision sent to a former staff member with a serious disability, see Judgment 3012, consideration 6). That requirement was not met by ITU, since – somewhat shockingly from a human perspective – the Organisation simply failed to communicate with the complainant from the beginning of the present case and, in particular, did not reply to either of the abovementioned letters sent to it on her behalf.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3012
Keywords
internal appeal; duty of care; former official
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers it useful to point out, in the light of the highly specific circumstances of the case and by way of information only, that, under its case law, changes to rules or circumstances that cause a sudden reduction in a staff member or former staff member’s financial resources may warrant at least partial compensation for the resulting injury, even where no criticism can be made of their legality as such, particularly in terms of respect for acquired rights. Under its duty of care, the organisation concerned is, as a rule, bound to ensure that the staff member concerned is not thereby forced suddenly to alter her or his standard of living or personal choices based on the legitimate hope that she or he will continue to receive the same resources as previously (see, in particular, Judgment 4465, considerations 12 to 18, or Judgment 3373, considerations 5 to 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3373, 4465
Keywords
duty of care
Consideration 7
Extract:
As it stands, the complaint must [...] be dismissed as irreceivable on the grounds that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal remedies provided for in the applicable Staff Regulations, it being recalled that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, to comply with this condition of receivability, the complainant must not only have exhausted the internal remedies but also duly complied with the applicable rules and time limits (see, for example, Judgments 1244, considerations 1 and 4, or 4101, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244, 4101
Keywords
internal remedies exhausted
|
