Judgment No. 1249
1. THE DECISION OF 2 DECEMBER 1991 BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE WHO IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE COMPLAINANT IS REINSTATED AS FROM 1 JUNE 1991.
3. HE IS SENT BACK TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR A PROPER DECISION ON HIS CLAIM TO RENEWAL.
4. THE WHO SHALL PAY HIM 10,000 SWISS FRANCS IN COSTS.
5. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
WHO put an end to the complainant's appointment on the grounds that the authorities of his country were unwilling to release him any longer. "The Director-General took himself to be bound by the attitude of the government of the Soviet Union. In doing so, he mistook the limits of his own discretion. As was held in Judgment 15 [...] among others, he must in exercising that discretion observe the general principles that govern the international civil service and safeguard the independence of organisation and official alike. The Director-General has committed a mistake of law."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 15
decision; complainant; nationality; organisation; case law; independence; member state; international civil service principles; secondment; contract; extension of contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; discretion; executive head; limits; official
The organization failed to renew the complainant's appointment on the grounds that the authorities of his country were unwilling to release him any longer. the director-general has "committed a mistake of fact by wrongly taking the complainant to be on secondment [...] the organization actually concedes the point in its surrejoinder: his appointment 'could not [...] be described as a true secondment'".
decision; complainant; secondment; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; mistake of fact
"The impugned decision [not to renew the complainant's appointment] was warranted neither by the WHO's concern for the purported interests of the country of the complainant's nationality nor by its desire to keep on good terms and work effectively with its membership. Relations with a member state may be good without the Organization's allowing any of its Member States the right to interfere in the area of personnel management."
decision; complainant; nationality; place of origin; organisation; independence; member state; international civil service principles; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract
The organization decided not to extend the complainant's appointment on the grounds that the authorities of his country were unwilling to release him any longer. "The organization makes out that, having derived from his status as a 'seconded' official the privilege of being relieved of going through the usual competitive process, the complainant may not, according to the doctrine of estoppel, 'take advantage of a special situation in his favour and then later deny the validity of this in order to obtain some further advantage'. The simple answer to that is that the organization bypassed the usual procedure because of an understanding it had with [a Member State]. So it may not properly expect the complainant to suffer for its own failure to follow the usual procedure as laid down in its rules."
procedure before the tribunal; decision; complainant; general principle; good faith; staff regulations and rules; breach; enforcement; secondment; contract; appointment; competition; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract