Judgment No. 4080
Decision
1. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant compensation in the amount of 10,000 euros for moral injury.
2. It shall also pay him 5,000 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; professional accident; duty of care
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to its case law, the Tribunal considers that in an international organisation, a delegation of the power of signature is institutional rather than personal. It hence continues to operate after the delegator has left office and until one of his or her successors decides to withdraw it (see Judgment 3730, consideration 1). Given that decision [...] of 1 February 2009 delegating the power of signature had not been revoked by the new Director General, the decision of 28 January 2015 was lawfully signed on that basis by the Principal Director of Resources.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3730
Keywords
delegated authority
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the disclosure of the internal audit report, [...] the Tribunal notes that although the report was eventually forwarded to the complainant on 18 November 2015, following the Director General’s decision of 3 November 2015 to bring disciplinary proceedings against him, the Organisation should have forwarded it to the complainant, under its duty of care towards staff members, at the time when the Belgian Labour Prosecutor’s Office was contemplating taking criminal action against him. Indeed, from an extract of the draft internal audit report included in the dossier, it is clear that in all likelihood the report contained information which could have helped the complainant to defend his case in the event of such action.
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; inquiry; duty to inform; duty of care; investigation
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal is simply astonished that the complainant was invited to sign two proposals for a settlement requiring him to pay sums of money in exchange for the Organisation waiving disciplinary action against him and providing him with protection against any possible criminal action. Such a conduct is inadmissible.
Keywords
settlement out of court; disciplinary procedure
Consideration 8
Extract:
There is no need to quash the impugned decision insofar as it refused the disclosure of the internal audit report, since that report was produced subsequently, which has rendered the complainant’s claims regarding this matter moot. [...]
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; claim moot
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s request for the production of “all the information and reports relating to the accident involving Mr [C.]”[footnote omitted], being couched as it is in excessively broad and vague terms, amounts to a “fishing expedition”. The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the basis of such a request (see, for example, Judgments 2497, consideration 15, and 3486, consideration 2). The complainant’s request must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497, 3486
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition
| 
