Judgment No. 1020
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Summary
Extract:
After initially accepting the organization's offer of transfer made in connection with its headquarters move, the complainants changed their minds. Their appointments were then terminated. The organization calculated the period of notice as if they had turned the transfer offers down from the start. The complainants argue that the period of notice must run from the day they made their position known and that they are therefore entitled to compensation. The Tribunal holds that such an interpretation runs counter to the applicable provisions since the organization's intention was to treat all staff members who refused the offer of transfer in the same way, whatever the date of their refusal.
Keywords
time limit; start of time limit; transfer; transfer of headquarters; compensatory allowance; termination of employment; notice; compensatory measure; refusal
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Consultation does not require negotiation, let alone approval. The staff representatives merely state their opinion, and it is not binding on the administration." The Tribunal is satisfied that in the instant case the required consultations took place.
Keywords
organisation's duties; collective bargaining; consultation; difference
Consideration 9
Extract:
Where two provisions are on a par in law, "the material rule is that the particular qualifies the general."
Keywords
applicable law; precedence of rules; staff regulations and rules; provision
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The general principle the Tribunal will apply is that, save where there is reversal of an earlier decision - and in this case there was not - an administrative decision may not retroactively impair a right or alter any state of fact."
Keywords
withdrawal of decision; exception; general principle; non-retroactivity
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant initially accepted the transfer but later changed his mind. He must be deemed never to have consented to leaving his posts. "If there was anything retroactive about the period of notice, that was attributable, not to any decision of Interpol's, but to his own shift of position."
Keywords
complainant; non-retroactivity; transfer; acceptance; refusal
Consideration 13
Extract:
According to Article 53 of the Staff Regulations, those regulations may be amended or supplemented only "without prejudice to the rights the organization's officials have acquired" thereunder. That is an affirmation of the rule that an official "may plead an acquired right not only where it is contractual but even when staff regulations have been amended."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 53 OF INTERPOL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords
acquired right; staff regulations and rules; amendment to the rules; contract
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Since the Tribunal may not review the policy decision to move to Lyon the only effect it can give to the doctrine of acquired rights as recognised by Interpol is to determine whether the arrangements for carrying out the move were properly objective. Since the transfer did disrupt the lives of its staff, the organization had a duty to ensure that there was no undue or pointless detriment to their interests. The consequences of the change which the transfer brought in the conditions of their employment are to be gauged against cardinal principles such as equality of treatment, good faith and the rule against retroactivity".
Keywords
general principle; acquired right; equal treatment; good faith; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; amendment to the rules; terms of appointment; transfer of headquarters; judicial review
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Interpol would have acted in breach of an official's acquired rights had it required him to choose between compulsory transfer and straightforward resignation, together with the consequences of resignation."
Keywords
acquired right; transfer; transfer of headquarters; resignation
Consideration 13
Extract:
Article 2 of section 2 of Appendix VII of the Staff Rules is headed "Officials of the organization who have an acquired right with regard to the location of their duty station". The Tribunal holds that "the text is not to be taken literally. It cannot mean that the organization needs its staff's consent to decide on a matter like the transfer of its headquarters. A decision of that kind is inherently immune to review."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 2 OF SECTION 2 OF APPENDIX VII OF INTERPOL STAFF RULES
Keywords
competence of tribunal; acquired right; transfer of headquarters
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant cites legislation and case law in the host State. Interpol is an international organisation and not subject to any national law and, as to the issues on which he submits that French law has a bearing, he does not cite any text of Interpol's that warrants taking account of such law."
Keywords
applicable law; domestic law; condition
| 
