Judgment No. 1022
1. INTERPOL SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT DAMAGES EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT OF HER GROSS SALARY FOR DECEMBER 1988, PLUS INTEREST RECKONED AT THE RATE OF 10 PER CENT A YEAR FROM 1 JANUARY 1989.
2. IT SHALL PAY HER 2,000 FRENCH FRANCS IN COSTS.
3. HER OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
The complainant relies on an acquired right to three months' notice as stipulated in her contract. The organization gave her six months' notice. "There is an acquired right only where an amendment to the material rules that is to the official's detriment disrupts the structure of the contract or impairs the fundamental terms of employment that induced him to take up duty with the organization." That condition is plainly not met in the instant case.
time limit; acquired right; terms of appointment; contract; termination of employment; notice
"The main purpose of notice of termination is to protect someone who has his appointment terminated from sudden action that might put him in an awkward plight. Either he may go on working throughout the period or else he may be paid compensation in lieu. In any event there is nothing compulsory about compensation."
compensatory allowance; separation from service; notice; purpose
"The general principle of equal treatment does not mean that everybody is to be subject to the same rules. It means rather that where officials are in like case the treatment of them must be the same, but where they are not, the treatment may be different."
general principle; equal treatment
Considerations 9-10, Summary
The Staff Rules provide for a two-month period of consideration to allow the official to decide whether or not to accept the transfer offer. But the decision notified to the complainant failed to allow the two-month limit and was therefore tainted by a formal flaw. As the flaw does not go to the essence of the decision, the Tribunal held that the organization was liable on technical grounds.
time limit; transfer; flaw; formal flaw