Judgment No. 4089
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
retirement; age limit; extension beyond retirement age; complaint dismissed
[I]t was open to the Director General to view the complainant’s conduct giving rise to and the subsequent conduct in relation to the judgment debt as falling short of the standards demanded of international civil servants. Accordingly, and subject to the various legal arguments of the complainant, it was open to the Director General to conclude it was not in the interests of the Agency to extend the complainant’s appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
retirement; age limit; staff member's duties; conduct; discretion; organisation's interest; extension beyond retirement age
[T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3285
competence of tribunal; retirement; age limit; judicial review; discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age
[T]he case law of the Tribunal establishes that “[e]ven though colleagues of the complainant’s thought him suitable and recommended extending his appointment, the decision was not theirs to make” (see Judgment 1038, consideration 4). While those observations concerned the extension of an appointment (without an impending retirement), they are apt to apply in a case such as the present.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1038
analogy; retirement; age limit; discretion; extension beyond retirement age
The fourth argument is that the decision not to extend “amount[ed] to a violation of the principle of double jeopardy”. The complainant refers to Judgment 2861, consideration 50, in which the Tribunal said “a person [...] [cannot] be subject to two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions for the same conduct”. The short answer to this argument is that there was no adverse administrative decision concerning the complainant referable to the judgment of the Austrian court and what followed, before the decision not to extend her appointment was made. There were no two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions. This argument is unfounded and is rejected.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861