Judgment No. 2534
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
That is the decision impugned by the complainant, whose submissions are signed by a person who, according to the defendant, is not qualified to represent him, since he is neither a serving nor a former official of the Office who would be entitled as such to defend the complainant’s case pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Rules of the Tribunal, and since he has not produced the power of attorney required by Article 5(2). The Tribunal rejects this objection to receivability: firstly, the parties’ submissions show that the representative chosen by the complainant has indeed produced a power of attorney signed by the latter; secondly, even though it is correct that the representative was recruited by the ILO Staff Union for only a short time, a statement signed on 3 March 2005 on behalf of the Director-General indicates that he “was a staff member of the International Labour Office (ILO) in Geneva from 2 August 2004 to 31 December 2004”. The complaint is therefore receivable.
Keywords
counsel; power of attorney
Consideration 7
Extract:
[W]hile the complainant alleges that the sanction proposal in itself caused him moral and material injury, the defendant rightly argues that the facts on which he relies in claiming compensation for material damage, concerning his retention in Dakar and the conditions of his transfer to Geneva, are unconnected with the impugned decision. In this case moral injury could arise only if the proposal to apply a sanction had been implemented, but such was not the case and there is no evidence in the submissions to suggest ill will or any disregard for the complainant’s dignity on the part of the Organization.
Keywords
disciplinary measure; proposal
|
