Judgment No. 3736
Decision
1. The decisions to deduct additional insurance premiums from the complainants’ pensions as from 1 May 2014 are set aside.
2. The ITU is ordered to reimburse each of the complainants the amount of the additional premiums unduly deducted from their pension.
3. It shall pay each complainant compensation in the amount of 2,000 euros for moral injury.
4. It shall also pay each of them 2,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainants challenge the ITU’s decision to change its medical insurance scheme and to increase their premiums under this insurance scheme.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; insurance; consultation; health insurance
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A] general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned; it is only the individual implementing decisions which may be challenged (see Judgment 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3628
Keywords
general decision
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he ITU’s argument that the complainants’ claims are irreceivable in respect of the decisions – evidenced by their pensions slips – to deduct higher insurance premiums from their pensions, must be rejected since these decisions do indeed constitute individual decisions implementing Service Order No. 14/10. […], they are therefore open to appeal.
Keywords
payslip; impugned decision
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has already ruled that, under the provisions in force at that time, those means of redress were not open to former ITU staff members (see Judgments 2892, under 6 to 8, 3139, under 3, or 3178, under 5). The complainants could therefore file a complaint directly with the Tribunal and, contrary to the ITU’s assertions, the fact that they had nonetheless initiated internal appeal proceedings did not by any means signify that they had to complete them (see the above-mentioned Judgments 2892 and 3139).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2892, 3139, 3178
Keywords
direct appeal to tribunal
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]n keeping with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, when a text provides for the consultation of a body representing the staff before the adoption of a decision, the competent authority must follow that procedure, otherwise its decision will be unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 1488, under 10, and 3671, under 4). In this case, it has been established that the ITU did not consult the Staff Council on the disputed service order. The Council representatives’ participation in the […] working group, on which the defendant organisation relies, was not a valid substitute for the consultation of the Council as such.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1488, 3671
Keywords
advisory body; patere legem
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he fact that the premiums for the first month in which the new scheme applied were deducted in the previous month does not breach the principle of non-retroactivity.
Keywords
non-retroactivity
Consideration 13
Extract:
It follows from what was said under 7 [...] that Service Order No. 14/10 is unlawful because the Staff Council was not consulted. The decisions to deduct additional insurance premiums from the complainants’ pensions as from 1May 2014 must therefore be set aside and the organisation must be ordered to reimburse the complainants the amount thereof.
The complainants are also entitled to compensation for the moral injury caused by the unlawful nature of these undue deductions.
However, given that the unlawfulness of Service Order No. 14/10 is due only to a procedural flaw which, moreover, may be remedied, including retroactively, an award of 2,000 euros to each complainant will constitute sufficient compensation for this injury.
Keywords
moral injury; consultation
| 
