L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > ordonnance

Judgment No. 3835

Decision

1. The impugned decision is set aside to the extent indicated under 5.
2. UNESCO shall pay the complainant 30,000 euros in compensation for injury under all heads.
3. It shall also pay her costs in the amount of 500 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

The complainant, who received a special post allowance, challenges the denial of her request for the reclassification of her post.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

post classification

Considerations 2 and 3

Extract:

Among the numerous pleas on which the complainant relies in order to impugn that decision, one is of decisive importance for the outcome of this dispute, namely that regarding the application to the complainant of the new post classification standard, which the Director-General agreed to introduce in the Organization without any announcement and which was therefore inapplicable to staff members. Consistent precedent has it that a rule is enforceable only from the date on which it is brought to the notice of those to whom it applies (see, for example, Judgments 963, under 5, and 2575, under 6).
[...] By relying on a text that was not yet applicable to staff members, the Director-General rendered her decision unlawful. The unlawful nature of this decision was all the more serious for the fact that, as is plain from the file, the new classification standard was less favourable to the complainant.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 963, 2575

Keywords

publicity of a rule

Consideration 6

Extract:

The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3506

Keywords

order

Consideration 4

Extract:

[T]he Director-General failed to provide any explanation as to why [the complainant] did not follow the Appeal Board’s recommendation in this regard, in breach of the requirements established by the case law (see Judgment 3208, under 11, and the case law cited therein).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3208

Keywords

final decision; motivation



 
Dernière mise à jour: 03.12.2018 ^ haut