Judgment No. 4181
1. The impugned decision of 23 December 2015 is set aside, as is the initial decision of 15 July 2015, to the extent stated in consideration 9 of the judgment.
2. The ICC shall pay the complainant 5,000 euros in moral damages.
3. The ICC shall pay the complainant 1,000 euros costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant contests the failure by the ICC to complete his performance appraisal in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions.
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation
The ICC asks the Tribunal to protect the confidentiality of a document regarding another staff member which the complainant has disclosed in these proceedings without the consent of the staff member.
As this document, which is clearly marked “Staff in confidence”, was disclosed without the consent of the ICC and apparently without the consent of the staff member concerned, the Tribunal will protect its confidentiality and not refer to it.
The complainant asks the Tribunal to refer to and consider the submissions he made in his second complaint and to grant the remedies he sought therein. The Tribunal will not grant these remedies. It has stated on a number of occasions that it is inappropriate to effectively incorporate by reference into the pleas before it the arguments, contentions and pleas found in other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see, for example, Judgment 3920, under 5). This case law also applies in situations where a complainant refers to documents filed in other proceedings before the Tribunal.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3920
There is no legal ground for cancelling the performance appraisal report merely on the basis that the appraisal was not completed in a timely manner.
The complainant will be awarded 5,000 euros given the doubtless importance to the complainant of receiving the appraisal in a timely manner, particularly having regard to the impending reorganisation and his need to equip himself to secure a position within the reorganised Registry.
moral injury; performance evaluation
[The complainant] has provided no evidence or analysis to demonstrate that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose on which to base an award of exemplary damages (see, for example, Judgment 3419, under 8).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419