Judgment No. 2540
1. The decision of 24 August 2004 is set aside to the extent that it impliedly rejected the complainant's claim for moral damages.
2. The ITU shall pay the complainant 10,000 Swiss francs for the failure to extend his contract in a timely manner.
3. The express and implied decisions rejecting the complainant's appeals with respect to his detachment, transfer and dismissal from the post of Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department and the decision of 11 July 2005 rejecting his appeal with respect to the memorandum of 17 November 2004 are set aside.
4. The ITU shall pay the complainant additional moral damages in the sum of 25,000 Swiss francs in respect of the actions and decisions which are the subject of the second, third, fourth and fifth complaints.
5. It shall pay him exemplary damages in the sum of 25,000 Swiss francs by reason of the retaliatory nature of the decisions to detach, transfer and dismiss him from the post of Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department.
6. The ITU shall pay the complainant's costs for all proceedings in the sum of 10,000 Swiss francs.
7. The complaints are otherwise dismissed.
"The Tribunal is obliged to note that it is a most serious breach of the rights of international civil servants to take retaliatory action simply because they have pursued an internal appeal. International civil servants - no matter how high their rank is - cannot protect their rights in national tribunals. Their only recourse is through the mechanisms established by the relevant Staff Rules. To punish a person because he or she has had resort to those mechanisms is a gross abuse of power warranting an award of substantial exemplary damages".
internal appeal; right of appeal; amount; organisation's duties; municipal court; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; right; exemplary damages; official
"It was said in Judgment 442 that:
«As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable.»
To that should be added the rider that the duty to act in good faith and, also, the duty to respect the dignity of a subordinate require that the subordinate be given an opportunity to answer any criticism made and that his or her answers or explanations be fairly considered."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
injury; liability; organisation; general principle; right to reply; equity; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; work appraisal; allowance; supervisor; mistake of fact; consequence; difference; purpose; right