ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 98th Session

Judgment No. 2392


1. The complaint is allowed.
2. IFAD shall pay the complainant the sum of 10,000 euros in moral damages, and costs in the amount of 2,500 euros.
3. All other claims are dismissed.

Consideration 6


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.)"


ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197


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

Consideration 9


The complainant was not selected for a post. She considers that she should have been given the preference because she was an internal candidate and by reason of her gender. "It is well settled that [such] preferences [...] must be given effect to where the choice has to be made between candidates who are evenly matched. On the other hand, they have no role to play where there is a significant and relevant difference between the candidates."


sex discrimination; appointment; competition; candidate; internal candidate; post; difference; refusal

Consideration 13


The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."


procedure before the tribunal; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; complainant; internal appeal; time limit; delay; duty to inform; appointment; competition; candidate; post; refusal

Last updated: 18.08.2020 ^ top