ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Go to the home page
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Damages

You searched for:
Keywords: Damages
Total judgments found: 210

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

  • Judgment 3287


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Short Summary: The complainant, who reported his suspicions that someone was unlwafully accessing his work email account, impugned the decision to deny him access to the investigation report.

    Judgment's keywords

    Keywords:

    compensation; complaint; damages; delay; inquiry; right;



  • Judgment 3215


    115th Session, 2013
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804

    Keywords:

    accident; burden of proof; damages; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; negligence; organisation's duties; service-incurred; working conditions;



  • Judgment 3198


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "According to the case law of the Tribunal, no damages will be ordered where a decision does not hamper a career and the matter which was complained of has been withdrawn (see Judgment 1380, under 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380

    Keywords:

    damages; decision; evidence; lack of evidence; lack of injury; no cause of action; professional injury; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 3193


    114th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "In a case where a complainant establishes that the disputed decision involved an abuse of power, the appropriate relief is often to set aside the decision. Indeed, such a decision should not stand in the face of the conclusion that it involved an abuse of power. [However], in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 496

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; decision; misuse of authority; moral injury; organisation's interest; post classification; reassignment; transfer;



  • Judgment 3180


    114th Session, 2013
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant is [...] entitled to claim interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from [...] a [salary] adjustment."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; amount; claim; complaint allowed; delay; interest on damages; payment; salary;



  • Judgment 3172


    114th Session, 2013
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; general principle; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3168


    114th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "It is firm Tribunal case law that a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgments 2904, under 14 and 15, 2851, under 10, and 2116, under 11). It can be seen from the above summary of the internal appeal process that there were a number of requests for extensions of time by both parties and in some instances consented to by the opposing party. While the departure of a staff member responsible for an appeal is beyond the control of the Administration, the latter does bear the responsibility of providing adequate staffing in keeping with its obligation to provide an efficient means of internal redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2851, 2904

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; decision; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit;



  • Judgment 3166


    114th Session, 2013
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 18 and 19

    Extract:

    "[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
    The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071

    Keywords:

    advisory body; claim; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; damages; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; moral injury; non-renewal; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3160


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 11 and 15

    Extract:

    "This Tribunal has recognised staff members’ right to privacy. An example is found in Judgment 2271. [...]
    [T]he issue is whether there was a breach of privacy or confidentiality as a result of the disclosure to the Director of PSM/HRM of the fact that the complainant had made an Appendix D claim. The answer is readily found in Judgment 3004 at consideration 6. [...] The disclosure of the mere fact that the claim had been made involved a breach of confidentiality. Being in a similar situation, the complainant should be awarded 4,000 euros as moral damages for breach of confidentiality."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271, 3004

    Keywords:

    breach; communication to third party; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; damages; lack of consent; moral injury; organisation's duties;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902

    Keywords:

    compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;



  • Judgment 3154


    114th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The ordinary meaning of 'gross salary' is the full amount of a staff member’s regular remuneration including allowances, overtime pay, commissions and bonuses, and any other amount usually paid, before any deductions are made. In context, the notion of 'gross salary' was chosen to indicate the base salary prior to the staff deduction, plus all allowances and benefits. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the award of damages had to be the equivalent of reinstatement and that the express purpose was to compensate the complainant for the time he 'should have worked with the Union'."

    Keywords:

    amount; application for interpretation; compensation; damages; gross salary; interpretation; judgment;



  • Judgment 3152


    114th Session, 2013
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 26

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal, which has the power to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that its judgments are executed, may, if it considers it appropriate, order the payment of a penalty for default (see, for example, Judgments 1620, under 10, or 2806, under 11). In the present case, the patent lack of goodwill demonstrated by [the organisation] to date with regard to honouring its obligation to pay the awards made against it justifies the imposition of a penalty, as requested by the complainant, of 25,000 euros for each month's delay in the settlement of the awards made in this judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 2806

    Keywords:

    application for execution; complaint allowed; continuing breach; delay; execution; formal demand for payment; iloat; judgment; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 3130


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; claim; compensation; complaint allowed in part; damages; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; international civil servant; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 3128


    113th Session, 2012
    Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The complainant is [...] entitled to moral damages in the amount of 5,000 [Swiss] francs for the failure of the Executive Board to provide reasons for its decision to reject his appeal."

    Keywords:

    breach; compensation; complaint allowed in part; damages; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; grounds; internal appeal; moral injury; refusal;



  • Judgment 3038


    111th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    Failure of the parties to reach agreement on the amount of compensation owed to the complainant for the termination of his appointment following a flawed reassignment procedure.
    "The Tribunal finds that the inordinate delay on the part of the Organization, and its conduct during the negotiations, do not reflect the duty that is incumbent on an organisation to negotiate in good faith, or the care it should take in the implementation of a decision. These matters warrant an award of moral damages."

    Keywords:

    compensation; conduct; damages; delay; duty of care; good faith; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3023


    111th Session, 2011
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Tribunal rejects the plea that the non-observance of the time-limits for the filing of the internal appeal was due to reasons beyond the complainant's control.
    "[T]he complainant claims that she has suffered injury due to the delay in the internal appeals proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the internal appeal took approximately 17 months. Given that the only issue considered in the appeal process was receivability, the Tribunal agrees that there has been undue delay for which the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...]."

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; complainant; damages; delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;



  • Judgment 3013


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The obligation to pay compound interest is always an exception. According to the Tribunal's case law, such an obligation must arise from the operative part of its judgments. In this case, to quote the language of consideration 4 of Judgment 802, "if the Tribunal had meant compound interest, [...] it would have used words to that effect"."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 802

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case law; consequence; exception; interest on damages; judgment; organisation's duties; payment;



  • Judgment 2935


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complainant claims punitive damages. This claim may be summarily dismissed because it is tantamount to asking the Tribunal to make an example of the Organisation by obliging it to pay compensation exceeding the material and moral injury actually suffered by the complainant. Such a claim may be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation's conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith."

    Keywords:

    breach; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; good faith;



  • Judgment 2931


    109th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[I]t was an affront to her dignity and a breach of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to expect the complainant to work at a post that was graded below the level of the duties actually being performed. For this, she is entitled to moral damages [...]."

    Keywords:

    compensation; damages; equal treatment; grade; moral injury; post; post classification; post description; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2904


    108th Session, 2010
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 14 and 15

    Extract:

    The complainant claims compensation for the overall delay involved in this matter.
    "As for the internal appeal process, the Tribunal recalls that the Organization has a duty to maintain a fully functional internal appeals body. Thus, the Committee's statement that 'the alleged delays could not be ascribed to it as they were due to the need for arranging election of new members to the Appeals Committee and the time requirements for this' does not relieve the Organization from responsibility for the delay in the process. According to well-established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeals procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). The first appeal lasted for approximately 16 months, even though it hinged on the simple question of receivability. The entire process to date has stretched over eight years. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to be compensated in the amount of 4,000 euros for this delay."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability; time limit;



  • Judgment 2891


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that UNIDO failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well-established case law, the Organization has a duty to maintain a fully functional internal appeals body. Further, "[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed" (see Judgment 2197, under 33). The complainant's appeal was filed on 10 September 2004 and the Director-General's decision to endorse the appeal in part was dated 11 March 2008. This represents a significant and unacceptable delay of approximately 42 months. This delay entitles the complainant to moral damages. However, having regard to the reason for the delay (mainly obstacles in the appeal procedure) and considering the Organization's subsequent steps to rectify the situation, the Tribunal does not consider that the delay warrants an award of exemplary damages."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; damages; internal appeal; internal appeals body;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Following her reassignment, which in Judgment 2659 the Tribunal considered as a hidden disciplinary sanction, the complainant applied for her previous post. Her application was however not considered on the grounds that under Administrative Instruction No. 16 only applications from staff members who had serve in one position for a minimum of one year would be receivable. The complainant challenged the decision not to consider her application, arguing that it constituted discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal found in her favour and awarded her the compensation she had claimed.
    "While this case stems from the previous complaint, the two cases are separate and distinct, being based on different facts and different administrative decisions. Each unlawful decision must have its own remedy. Therefore, the Organization's assertion that the damages already paid to the complainant must be taken into account in the calculation of damages in the present case is incorrect."

    Keywords:

    complaint; damages; difference; different decisions; new claim; new fact; new plea;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 31.07.2014 ^ top