|
|
 |
|
|
Recovery of overpayment (211,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Recovery of overpayment
Total judgments found: 29
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4696
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover supposed overpayments made to him by way of expatriation allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
It is true that the Tribunal has already stated that, according to its case law, “an organization’s right to recover an overpayment must be partially – or fully – denied if the circumstances of the case show that the reimbursement sought would be unfair or inequitable for the staff member concerned” (see Judgment 4139, consideration 14). However, since the submissions show that the complainant’s remuneration was in fact too high for more than twenty-six years, and since Eurocontrol can only recover a fraction of the sumsin question, limited to five out of those twenty-six years, and has chosen to recover them through a monthly retention from the pension payments it makes to the complainant, the Tribunal considers that the reimbursement decided on by the Organisation is not unfair or inequitable towards the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4139
Keywords:
recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The existence of an error is at the very source of the principle of law concerning the recovery of undue payments and, in this case, either the error must have been known to the complainant since he could not have been unaware of the Organisation’s rules relating to the expatriation allowance, or else the situation was one that could not have reasonably escaped the notice of an official exercising ordinary diligence in the management of his personal affairs and who was supposed to know the regulations and rules of his organisation.
Keywords:
ignorance of the rules; recovery of overpayment;
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
In Judgment 4469, consideration 4, the Tribunal has already stated that Article 87 of Eurocontrol’s Staff Regulations constitutes an exception to the general principle of law that any sum paid in error may normally be recovered subject to the rules on time limits. Where a Eurocontrol staff member receives an undue payment, the Tribunal recalled in that judgment that recovery is only possible if one of the two conditions specified in Article 87 is met, namely that the official concerned was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the overpayment was patently obvious.
With regard to this second condition, which is the only one relevant to the present case, in the aforementioned Judgment 4469, this time in consideration 6, the Tribunal pointed out that it had already ruled on the interpretation to be given to the condition that requires the contested overpayment to be “patently such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it”. In Judgment 3201, consideration 14, the Tribunal stated that this condition is regarded as being met if “the mistake affecting the amount of the [sums paid] was sufficiently obvious that, even without accurately gauging its significance and determining its causes, it could not have reasonably escaped the notice of a [...] staff member exercising ordinary diligence in the management of his personal affairs”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3201, 4469
Keywords:
precedent; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4695
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring him to reimburse the undue payments of salary he received during absences that were declared to be unjustified by the Administration.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; recovery of overpayment; refund; unauthorised absence;
Judgment 4560
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions (i) to recover the amounts paid to him for Long-Term Care insurance benefits in respect of his ex-wife and (ii) to demand the immediate repayment of the outstanding balance of a home loan he took out from the EPO in 2006.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; late appeal; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4553
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover sums which were unduly paid to him as dependent child allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
child's benefit; complaint dismissed; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4514
134th Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to put an end, with retroactive effect, to the top-up sickness insurance cover received by his wife and, consequently, to recover the sums unduly paid by Eurocontrol under that cover.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; dependant; health insurance; recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 14
Extract:
Regarding moral damages, the Tribunal considers that the cancellation of the recovery of the sum in question is sufficient, in the present case, to compensate the complainant for all the injury he suffered.
Keywords:
moral injury; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4469
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which were allegedly unduly paid to him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
A finding that the complainant did in fact notice the error in calculating his salary would also automatically cast doubt on his good faith, since he would then of course have been required to report that error to the Eurocontrol Administration. However, the Tribunal considers that his good faith is borne out by the fact that the Organisation detected the error committed in 2015 owing to a request for information from the complainant, who [...] expressed surprise to the Administration that he had not been awarded a salary increase when he advanced to the second step of his grade. It is difficult to see why the complainant felt it necessary to raise this matter if he was aware that he had, in fact, already been receiving the remuneration corresponding to the step in question since 2015.
Keywords:
good faith; recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The central issue in the dispute is therefore whether, as Eurocontrol argues with reference to the alternative condition laid down in the aforementioned Article 87, the fact of the contested overpayment was “patently such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it”.
In this respect, it should be noted that the Tribunal, which has already ruled on the interpretation of this condition, held on that occasion that the condition should be regarded as having been satisfied if “the mistake affecting the amount of the [sums paid] was sufficiently obvious that, even without accurately gauging its significance and determining its causes, it could not have reasonably escaped the notice of a [...] staff member exercising ordinary diligence in the management of his personal affairs” (see Judgment 3201, consideration 14, in fine). The parties’ arguments in the present case will also be examined on the basis of this interpretation. Several elements in the file lead the Tribunal to consider that the condition in question was not satisfied in this case.
Keywords:
flaw; precedent; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]s an exception to the general principle of law that any sum paid in error may normally be recovered subject to the rules on time limits (see, for example, Judgment 4139, consideration 14, and the case law cited therein), where a Eurocontrol staff member receives an undue payment, such recovery is only possible if one of the two conditions specified is met: namely that the official concerned was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the overpayment was patently obvious.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4139
Keywords:
general principle; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4166
128th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which it considers were unduly paid to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4139
128th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is a general principal of law that any sum which has been paid in error may be recovered, provided that the request for reimbursement is made in reasonable time (see, inter alia, Judgments 1195, consideration 3, 2230, consideration 13, 2565, considerations 7(a) and 7(c), and 2899, consideration 20).
[...]
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an organization’s right to recover an overpayment must be partially – or fully – denied if the circumstances of the case show that the reimbursement sought would be unfair or inequitable for the staff member concerned (see Judgments 1111, consideration 2, 1849, considerations 16 and 18, and 2899, aforementioned, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1195, 1849, 2230, 2565, 2899
Keywords:
recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 3441
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension of contract; fixed-term; joinder; recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 23
Extract:
[T]he decision to recover payments to which there was no entitlement is an administrative decision that the Administration could have made once it was satisfied that the complainant had not provided evidence to support the entitlement to the payments.
Keywords:
recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 3289
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant received a written censure for failing to comply with the procedure of authorizing outside activities and remuneration.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is observed that there is no limitation period in relation to disciplinary proceedings in the Staff Regulations and Rules. The complainant’s attempt to analogise from the Staff Rule concerning the recovery of an overpayment within one year is without merit. An overpayment is in no way analogous to misconduct. It is true that, if possible, an organisation should promptly take action when the possibility of misconduct on the part of a staff member comes to its attention. However, the complainant’s assertion that an alleged violation of a Staff Rule, if considered serious, “has to be investigated promptly and at the latest one year after the Administration took notice thereof” has no foundation in law or in the Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3226
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of her salary for one particular month and the refusal of WIPO to spread the reimbursement of the amount unduly paid to her.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; salary;
Judgment 3201
115th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, who are pensioners, challenge the recovery of overpayments.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 3167
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the request by the EPO for the recovery of household allowance overpayments.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; family allowance; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 3121
113th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; education expenses; recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It should first be noted that bad faith on the part of a debtor, whatever the source of his or her obligation, does not in principle prevent a debt from being extinguished by prescription.
That will only occur if the debtor has used deception to prevent the creditor from taking action before the expiry of the prescription period. Moreover, an ordinary prescription period formally laid down will not normally apply if the debt arises from a criminal act, in which case the prescription period for criminal proceedings will apply.
Keywords:
bad faith; debt; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
Keywords:
allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; marital status; official; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction of salary; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
Judgment 2968
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]ccording to Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, Eurocontrol was required to recover [the overpayment]. As the Agency was bound to recover the unduly paid amounts, there can be no claim of inequality of treatment. Furthermore, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the e-mail exchanges between the Administration and the complainant regarding the correction of the error, as well as the reasonable repayment schedule, are sufficient to establish that the Agency acted in good faith and fulfilled its duty of care towards him.
The complaint is therefore unfounded and must be dismissed.
Keywords:
recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The complainant refused to accede to EFTA's request for reimbursement of an amount allegedly overpaid.
"Contrary to his submissions, the complainant could not refuse [...] to comply with the Association's express and repeated requests for reimbursement. As the internal appeal procedure does not have a suspensory effect, and even though [EFTA] would no doubt have been wiser to await its completion before demanding payment of the debt, he was bound to comply with these requests. His refusal to accede to them thus constituted misconduct which could lead to a disciplinary sanction [...]."
Keywords:
breach; condition; disciplinary measure; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recovery of overpayment; refund; refusal; request by a party; staff member's duties; suspensory effects;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal's case law has it that an international organisation which has mistakenly overpaid an official must take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment of the sum in question - at least the full amount thereof. Relevant circumstances include the good or bad faith of the staff member, the sort of mistake made, the respective responsibilities of the organisation and the person concerned for the causes of the mistake and the inconvenience to which the staff member would be put by repayment that is required as a result of the organisation's oversight (see Judgments 1111, under 2, and 1849, under 16 and 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1849
Keywords:
case law; cause; condition; consequence; equity; good faith; liability; mistake of fact; official; organisation; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; refund; request by a party;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"[T]he decision of the chief executive officer of an organisation to recover an unduly paid sum of money falls within his or her discretionary authority and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, but this decision must nevertheless be censured if it is tainted with a formal or procedural irregularity, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; procedural flaw; recovery of overpayment;
Consideration 20
Extract:
It is a general principle of law, to which reference is made in Judgments 1195, under 3, and 2565, under 7(a), that any sum which has been paid in error may be recovered, save where such recovery is time-barred, which was obviously not the case here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1195, 2565
Keywords:
recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant had to reimburse the full amount overpaid.
"The evidence on file shows that the complainant deliberately refrained from declaring to Eurocontrol the family allowances drawn by his partner, although he had been duly informed that, in the Agency's view, they should be deducted from those he was receiving. While it was open to the complainant to challenge - if necessary before the Tribunal - any deductions made by the Agency in calculating the payments, he could not choose of his own accord to evade his duty of disclosure. He must therefore be deemed to have been aware of the unlawfulness of the disputed payments, which was indeed sufficiently obvious for it to be concluded that he could not have been unaware of it."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; dependent child; domestic law; family allowance; flaw; misrepresentation; payment; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2565
101st Session, 2006
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(c)
Extract:
"A claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought in reasonable time (see Judgment 53, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53
Keywords:
reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; time bar;
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"According to a general principle of law, whoever has paid a sum mistakenly is entitled to recover it within a reasonable time provided the person can prove that the sum was paid in the mistaken belief that it was owed (see Judgments 497, under 6, and 1195, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 497, 1195
Keywords:
amount; burden of proof; condition; general principle; payment; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; right; unjust enrichment;
Judgment 2230
95th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant claims that a payment made to him by mistake should not have been recovered from him three years later. "While it is a general principle of law that lapse of time may extinguish an obligation, the complainant has not cited any provision relative to recovery of overpayments [...] establishing a prescriptive period beyond which the undue payments may no longer be recovered."
Keywords:
definition; discontinuance; general principle; payment; period; provision; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; right;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
