Judgment No. 3409
1. The decisions not to renew the complainants’ contracts are set aside.
2. IFAD shall pay each complainant material damages as outlined under consideration 13.
3. It shall pay each complainant moral damages in the amount of 6,000 euros.
4. It shall also pay each complainant costs in the amount of 1,000 euros.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal awarded the complainants material and moral damages stemming from IFAD's unlawful decisions and violation of its duty of care.
complaint allowed; decision quashed; reassignment; non-renewal of contract
"Although the facts differ somewhat from case to case, the two complaints raise the same issues of fact and law, contain some common claims, rest in part on the same arguments, and seek the same redress. The Tribunal therefore considers that they should be joined in order that they may form the subject of a single judgment (see Judgments 1461, under 2, 1680, under 2, and 2944, under 19)."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1461, 1680, 2944
"The Tribunal finds that the complainants’ claims against the abolition of their posts are irreceivable, in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, for failure to exhaust all internal means of redress. While the complainants submit that they were only later aware of the full damage caused to them by the abolition of their posts, they each should have filed an internal appeal (as IFAD did not authorize them to challenge the issue directly before the Tribunal) challenging the 9 August 2012 decisions insofar as the decisions declared their requests for facilitation concerning the abolition of their posts to be time-barred."
direct appeal to tribunal; time bar
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that IFAD violated its duty of care and did not respect the dignity of the complainants. Specifically, with regard to Ms V., it was out of the ordinary for her job title to have suddenly changed from [...] to [...], and later [...] only after she protested against the unjustified change, which appeared to demote her. [...] By simply expecting her to apply for posts at the P-4 level, IFAD did not recognise her P-5 level nor did it respect her dignity."
respect for dignity; duty of care
"As the complainants lost a valuable opportunity to have their contracts renewed in positions other than the abolished positions, the Tribunal awards them material damages in the amount they would have earned at their respective grades for one year [...] including all allowances, benefits and entitlements, less any amounts already received by way of salary and emoluments from any other employment for that period, plus monthly interest of 5 per cent from the date of separation to the date of final payment. The Tribunal awards them moral damages stemming from the unlawful decisions and IFAD’s violation of its duty of care and failure to respect their dignity [...]. The Tribunal does not see any justification for an award of exemplary damages so that claim is dismissed."
material injury; moral injury; respect for dignity
Although the Tribunal, as in Judgment 3172, will not rule on the lawfulness of the abolition decisions, it will consider the overall situation regarding the Fund’s treatment of the complainants, including the actions leading up to the abolition of their posts, as well as the consequent effects. Considering this, the main issues to be addressed regard the non-renewal of the complainants’ contracts, the subsequent reassignment efforts, and the extent to which IFAD fulfilled its duty of care and showed respect for the dignity of the complainants.
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3172
time bar; abolition of post; duty of care