Judgment No. 3439
1. WHO shall pay the complainant 50,000 United States dollars as damages.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant 5,000 dollars for costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
complaint allowed; abolition of post; non-renewal of contract
"The Tribunal has consistently said that time limits serve the purpose of, amongst other things, creating finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective. So it is in this case. To the extent that the complainant seeks to challenge the decision to abolish his post in these proceedings and his internal appeal was time-barred, he has thus not exhausted internal remedies. His complaint, in this respect, is irreceivable."
internal appeal; delay; time bar
"[I]t is desirable to refer to the approach taken by the Tribunal to findings of fact made by internal appeal bodies such as the HBA. As is evident from the Tribunal’s discussion in Judgment 2295, under 10, it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. Moreover the findings of such an internal appeal body warrant deference. In addition, where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
internal appeals body; evidence; mistake of fact; manifest error
"The complainant [...] requests an oral hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied having regard to the pleas and the documentary evidence, sufficient material is available to fairly and appropriately adjudicate on the complainant’s claims."
"[T]he complainant is entitled to moral damages for the failings in the reassignment process. Reinstatement is impracticable and inappropriate. The complainant lost the full benefit of the opportunity created by the Rules to be reassigned to another post within WHO. That is a valuable opportunity. That said, there can be no certainty or even likelihood that he would have been reassigned."
The complainant resists the conclusion that his appeal against the abolition decision was time-barred and refers in his rejoinder to Judgment 1712, consideration 10:
“The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the Appellant’s position.”
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712
cause of action