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

Moral injury (50,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Moral injury
Total judgments found: 324

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >



  • Judgment 2744


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In the present case, over three years have elapsed between the filing of the complainant's appeal and the issuing of the Internal Appeals Committee's opinion. Moreover, two and a half years have elapsed between the filing of the appeal and the submission of the EPO's position paper before the Committee, which constitutes an excessive delay in the proceedings. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to 1,000 euros in moral damages."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; date; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; period; procedure before the tribunal; publication; report; right;



  • Judgment 2698


    104th Session, 2008
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 13-14

    Extract:

    The complainant was notified of a number of serious charges against him and was informed that he would be suspended from duty with pay until the end of the investigation into the charges. "The Director General did not [...] implement the Appeal Board's recommendation that he should conclude with all due speed the investigation into the allegations of serious misconduct against the complainant and should take a decision within a reasonable time. In fact he did not conduct the investigation with the dispatch required by the Tribunal's case law and by the circumstances of the case, and he thus caused an unjustified delay in the handling of the case. The explanations given by the Organization in its submissions are irrelevant, particularly because they do not indicate that the completion of the investigation was delayed through any fault on the part of the complainant.
    By prolonging an essentially temporary measure beyond a reasonable time, without any valid grounds, thereby placing the complainant in a situation of uncertainty as to his further career, the Organization caused him moral injury which must be redressed by awarding him the amount of 10,000 United States dollars."

    Keywords:

    allowance; breach; career; case law; compensation; consequence; decision; delay; executive head; grounds; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; provisional measures; reasonable time; recommendation; serious misconduct; suspensive action;



  • Judgment 2684


    104th Session, 2008
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 and 10

    Extract:

    It must be emphasised that it is up to the parties to work together in good faith to execute the Tribunal’s judgments so as to ensure that they are executed within a reasonable period of time. It is apparent from the submissions that the procedure for obtaining a further medical opinion, as ordered in Judgment 2551, has been delayed most regrettably in a case in which the Tribunal has already drawn attention to the excessive length of the proceedings.
    [...]
    However, [the Tribunal] is bound to observe that [...] the Union failed in its duty to execute Judgment 2551 in good faith. [T]here is justification for awarding the complainant compensation [...].

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; good faith; moral injury;



  • Judgment 2645


    103rd Session, 2007
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant, in her appeal to the Director-General, the rejection of which prompted her to submit the matter to the Appeals Committee, merely requested that the disciplinary measure of suspension be revoked and that she be reinstated in the Organization. In her appeal she asked the Committee to rule that the penalties imposed on her were unlawful. It would therefore appear that during the internal proceedings she filed no specific claim for damages for an injury due to the sexual harassment she claimed to have suffered, although she dwelt at length on her allegations of sexual harassment and attributes the reprisals by her supervisor to her having reported them.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that any claim for damages for the injury that the complainant allegedly suffered as a result of sexual harassment constitutes an extension of the scope of the claims filed during the internal appeal proceedings and is therefore irreceivable pursuant to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal’s Statute inasmuch as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of redress (see, inter alia, Judgement 1380, under 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380

    Keywords:

    moral injury; new plea; sexual harassment;



  • Judgment 2626


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5(a)

    Extract:

    "A decision to refuse to publish in an international organisation's in-house magazine the corrigendum of an article which, in the opinion of the staff member concerned, injures his personal interests may constitute a breach of that staff member's personal rights and an infringement of his freedom of expression. Insofar as such a decision in itself produces legal effects and infringes the rights of the staff member concerned, it constitutes an administrative act causing injury."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; breach; cause of action; effect; freedom of speech; individual decision; injury; moral injury; organisation; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2588


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Agency has produced before the Tribunal an excerpt of the minutes of the Panel’s meeting [...], as a result of which the complainant has been able to consult that document and to have at her disposal more information than the mere analysis thereof by the Joint Appeals Board. This late disclosure does not remedy the irregularity committed by the Agency, for it is well settled (see, for example, Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2315, under 27) that “[t]o ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal, the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome”. In the instant case, consulting the Joint Advisory Panel’s report, even if it was in principle confidential, was instructive for the complainant, and some of its content was liable to influence the outcome of her claims since it discloses that some members of the Panel expressed reservations, and even showed some concern about the solution finally adopted, and that they suggested that the Agency should help the staff member to find alternative employment. This procedural irregularity does not in itself call into question the lawfulness of the impugned decision, but it must be borne in mind when assessing the injury which the complainant claims to have suffered [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2315

    Keywords:

    damages; delay; disclosure of evidence; moral injury;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028

    Keywords:

    allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2553


    101st Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5-6

    Extract:

    Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
    "Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
    "This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
    In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;



  • Judgment 2524


    100th Session, 2006
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 26

    Extract:

    "The Joint Appeals Panel [examining a case of alleged harassment] fell into [...] error by analysing certain of the incidents upon which the complainant relied as separate or independent events without considering them in their overall context."

    Keywords:

    effect; evidence; harassment; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "There were [...] fundamental errors of law in the approach of the [Joint Appeals] Panel. It proceeded on the basis that it was necessary to establish an intention to 'intimidate, insult, harass, abuse, discriminate or humiliate a colleague' and concluded that there must be 'bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent' before that intention could be inferred. That is not correct. Harassment and mobbing do not require any such intent. However, behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question. (See Judgment 2370, under 17.) On the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370

    Keywords:

    bias; criteria; evidence; good faith; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2522


    100th Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal concludes that the internal appeal proceedings were not conducted with due diligence or with the care owed by an international organisation to its staff. The complainant had reason to believe that the Agency was making every effort to hamper the proceedings to prevent them from being concluded within a reasonable time. He was not informed of the final outcome of his internal appeal until nearly two months after the Director General had taken his final decision. Moreover, the latter replied to the complainant's request for review more than three months after the request was submitted, and only after an appeal had been lodged with the Joint Appeals Board. The Tribunal concludes from the above that the complainant suffered moral injury."

    Keywords:

    decision; delay; due process; evidence; internal appeal; late decision; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;



  • Judgment 2521


    100th Session, 2006
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has frequently pointed out that it is for the person alleging harassment to prove specific facts supporting that allegation (see Judgments 2067, 2100, 2370 and 2406). [...] As with the facts relied on to establish harassment, it is for the person making the allegation to establish that the acts or decisions in question were accompanied by some purpose or attitude which allows them to be so characterised."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 2100, 2370, 2406

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; case law; decision; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    In a case of moral harassment, the existence of "other complaints [...] might [...] support [...] the claim of harassment, but the absence of complaint could not be used to support the contrary proposition."

    Keywords:

    complaint; evidence; harassment; lack of evidence; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; subsidiary;



  • Judgment 2507


    100th Session, 2006
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Criticism of a subordinate's performance and behaviour, even in inappropriately strong language, does not, of itself, evidence harassment or prejudice. Certainly, that is so where [...] the performance and behaviour in question are confirmed by other senior and responsible officials. That being so, and there being no other evidence to support the complainant's claims, the allegations of harassment and prejudice must be rejected."

    Keywords:

    bias; conduct; different appraisals; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; performance report; respect for dignity; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2480


    100th Session, 2006
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2 and 4

    Extract:

    The complainant takes issue with an ILO circular which concerned matrimonial property rights. It informed foreign nationals, like himself, who were married outside Switzerland with no marriage contract, that Switzerland was treating such persons as subject to the Swiss regime of joint ownership of property acquired after marriage (participation aux acquêts). He holds that by accepting such "instructions" from the Swiss Government, the Organization caused him undue financial hardship and "deep moral suffering". The Tribunal considers that the circular was "simply the transmission by the ILO to its staff members resident in Geneva of information received from the local 'Chambre des notaires'. [...] The publication by an international organisation for its staff members of purely objective information of this sort relating to local private law is manifestly not a matter falling within the Tribunal's field of competence."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 451, Series 6

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; domestic law; headquarters official; information note; marital status; material injury; moral injury; nationality; official; organisation; publication; written rule;



  • Judgment 2457


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2416


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 8 and 11

    Extract:

    "The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
    The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2396


    98th Session, 2005
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Any administrative or disciplinary body of an organisation which consults a third party to obtain information concerning the professional behaviour of one of its staff members must naturally avoid impairing the latter's dignity and reputation. In the first place, it absolutely must ensure that the presumption of his innocence is maintained, and if its action is such as to breach the presumption of innocence or the fundamental rights of the staff member, making that action confidential is of no avail."

    Keywords:

    breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; executive body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; qualifications; respect for dignity; right;



  • Judgment 2394


    98th Session, 2005
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was terminated. "[I]t emerges quite clearly from the file that the irregularities committed [...], the careless way the Organization advertised the complainant's post before he had even had a chance to comment on the termination of his contract, and the way it admitted the unlawfulness of the termination notified on 29 August 2001 [...] only in a decision of 28 June 2003 notified to the complainant on 17 July 2003, severely harmed the complainant's legitimate interests and impaired his dignity." He is therefore entitled to a compensation for the financial and moral damage he incurred.

    Keywords:

    acceptance; allowance; competition; date of notification; delay; flaw; injury; material injury; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; post; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; staff member's interest; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2392


    98th Session, 2005
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197

    Keywords:

    acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;



  • Judgment 2373


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    After the decision not to renew his contract the complainant was placed on special leave with full pay until the end of the contract and his access to the building was withdrawn. When he went to the OPCW's premises in order to hand in his request for review, he was escorted at all times by a security officer. The complainant considered this treatment to be an affront to his dignity. "Without in any way denying that the OPCW, like many other international organisations, must be vigilant about matters of internal security, the Tribunal notes that neither in the impugned decision nor in its reply does the Organisation give any explanation as to why it was thought necessary to treat the complainant in such a humiliating manner. Except in the most urgent cases, the requirements of security can almost always be fully met while still respecting the rights and dignity of individuals. This is especially so where [...] there is no breach of discipline involved and the person concerned has for many years occupied a position of trust to the Organisation's apparent complete satisfaction. [...] The Tribunal assesses [the moral] damages at 10,000 euros [...]."

    Keywords:

    assignment; breach; contract; grounds; injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's duties; reply; respect for dignity; right; salary; satisfactory service; special leave;



  • Judgment 2371


    97th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "Had this report been seen only by the persons entitled to receive it, it might not have injured the complainant's reputation, given that it was issued by an authority of the Organization which had no power of decision. However, as pointed out above, the whole of the report was communicated to persons who were not entitled to see it and there is no doubt that this disclosure, which was contrary to the obligation of confidentiality by which the Ombudsperson is bound pursuant to Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations, caused the complainant injury warranting compensation, even though the report was circulated 'on a confidential basis'."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations

    Keywords:

    advisory body; breach; communication to third party; compensation; confidential evidence; harassment; injury; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >


 
Last updated: 22.01.2021 ^ top