Judgment No. 2017
1. THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE WHO FOR A NEW DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSIDERATION 7.
2. ALL THE OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 2 (A)
"The complainant enjoyed the status of official from October 1974 to the end of December 1992. From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 he was employed on the basis of special agreements, which contained an arbitration clause providing for an "arbitral panel" composed of three members. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore limited to the effects of the relationship between the [organisation] and the complainant from October 1974 to the end of December 1992."
complaint allowed in part; status of complainant; external collaborator; competence of tribunal; arbitration; contract; limits; date
"An organisation must interpret the statements of a staff member in good faith and [...] as part of its duty to spare the staff member unnecessary injury, it may also be called upon to provide procedural guidance and help to put right a mistake (see Judgment 1734, [...] under 3(g))."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1734
complaint allowed in part; statement of intent; injury; good faith; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; interpretation; request by a party