ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > administrative delay

Judgment No. 2891

Decision

1. The Director-General's decision of 11 March 2008 is set aside to the extent that it did not involve the payment of more than 15,000 euros.
2. UNIDO shall pay the complainant an amount equal to 12 months' net salary, less the 15,000 euros already paid, as detailed under 8.
3. It shall also pay her 2,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.

Consideration 6

Extract:

Following her reassignment, which in Judgment 2659 the Tribunal considered as a hidden disciplinary sanction, the complainant applied for her previous post. Her application was however not considered on the grounds that under Administrative Instruction No. 16 only applications from staff members who had serve in one position for a minimum of one year would be receivable. The complainant challenged the decision not to consider her application, arguing that it constituted discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal found in her favour and awarded her the compensation she had claimed.
"While this case stems from the previous complaint, the two cases are separate and distinct, being based on different facts and different administrative decisions. Each unlawful decision must have its own remedy. Therefore, the Organization's assertion that the damages already paid to the complainant must be taken into account in the calculation of damages in the present case is incorrect."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2659

Keywords

complaint; new claim; new plea; damages; difference

Consideration 7

Extract:

"The Tribunal finds that UNIDO failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well-established case law, the Organization has a duty to maintain a fully functional internal appeals body. Further, "[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed" (see Judgment 2197, under 33). The complainant's appeal was filed on 10 September 2004 and the Director-General's decision to endorse the appeal in part was dated 11 March 2008. This represents a significant and unacceptable delay of approximately 42 months. This delay entitles the complainant to moral damages. However, having regard to the reason for the delay (mainly obstacles in the appeal procedure) and considering the Organization's subsequent steps to rectify the situation, the Tribunal does not consider that the delay warrants an award of exemplary damages."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197

Keywords

internal appeals body; administrative delay; internal appeal; material damages



 
Last updated: 28.08.2017 ^ top