Judgment No. 2515
1. The Secretary-General's decision of 30 August 2004 is set aside.
2. The ITU shall pay the complainant an amount equivalent to the salary increment that he would have been paid for the period from 1 November 2003 until 18 January 2004, together with interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent per annum until the date of payment.
3. The ITU shall pay the complainant an amount equivalent to his full salary, including the salary increment, from 19 January 2004 until 25 October 2004, together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from appropriate dates. The complainant must give credit for any salary earned during that period.
4. The ITU shall also pay the complainant moral damages in the sum of 30,000 Swiss francs and costs in the sum of 10,000 francs.
5. The complaint is otherwise dismissed.
"The decision to advertise the complainant's post [...] was in substance a decision to dismiss him from that post. No reason was ever provided for that decision [...] In the circumstances, it must be concluded that the decision resulted from the management review [conducted by the Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department]. In this regard, it is necessary only to observe that that review involved a denial of due process in that the complainant was not told precisely who had criticised his performance or conduct, nor was he told exactly what they had said. Moreover, he was not given an opportunity to question them or to rebut what was put against him. The decision to dismiss him from his post thus involved a serious breach of the requirements of due process."
decision; duty to substantiate decision; adversarial proceedings; right to reply; due process; organisation's duties; duty to inform; breach; contract; competition; post held by the complainant; vacancy notice; post; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service
An international organisation cannot depart from its "obligation to inform staff members of the aspects of their performance or conduct that are said to be unsatisfactory and to provide them with an opportunity to remedy the situation". Failing that, any decision based on such grounds (such as, for example, refusal to grant a salary increment) would be considered as "not taken in good faith".
decision; grounds; good faith; organisation's duties; duty to inform; step; unsatisfactory service; conduct; consequence; increase; refusal; subsidiary