Judgment No. 1516
1. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S DECISION OF 12 AUGUST 1994 IS SET ASIDE.
2. THECASE IS SENT BACK TO UNESCO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM TO COMPENSATION UNDER ARTICLES 18.1 AND18.2.1 OF THE RULES OF THE STAFF COMPENSATION PLAN.
3. UNESCO SHALL PAY HER 5,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN MORAL DAMAGES.
4. IT SHALL PAY HER 15,000 FRENCH FRANCS IN COSTS.
5. HER OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
"The organization is [...] wrong to argue that [the complainant] has never sought reconsideration [...] of the decision setting the degree of her invalidity [...] and so has no adverse decision to impugn on that score." "It is true that as worded her original claims were not about the degree of her invalidity [...] but there is much evidence to show that the competent units of the organization did realise she was seeking review on medical grounds" "both the complainant and senior officers believed that review was on the way. [...] So it is odd to find the defendant now arguing that she had to get an express decision before seeking review".
complaint; receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted; good faith; organisation's duties
"The complainant wants the Tribunal to 'declare that UNESCO has failed to act and itself make the final determination [regarding the degree of her invalidity] that the organization has for years been refusing' her. Having put up with years of dilatoriness and prevarication,she is understandably anxious to have her entitlements speedily determined. Being unable, however, to rule on the medical aspects of her case, the Tribunal has no choice but to send the case back to the organization for completion of the process of review in keeping with the rules."
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; iloat statute; medical board; medical opinion; medical examination; invalidity; rate; judicial review
The complainant seeks "damages for the material and moral injury she has sustained on account of UNESCO's refusal to take up her claim. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the defendant has been guilty of wrongful dilatoriness and shifts of position. It will award her damages for moral injury on that count, and in the light of all the circumstances of the case it sets the amount ex aequo et bono at 5,000 dollars."
procedure before the tribunal; moral injury; administrative delay; internal appeal; material damages