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

Judgment No. 4220

Decision

1. UNESCO shall pay each complainant moral damages in the amount of 1,000 euros.
2. UNESCO shall pay Mr C., Ms C. D. C., Mrs D. M., Ms I. and Ms L. costs in the amount of 1,000 euros each. It shall also pay Ms T. costs in the amount of 700 euros.
3. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

The complainants challenge the rejection of their requests for an agreed separation.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

complaint allowed; agreed termination

Consideration 11

Extract:

The complainants’ assertion that they would not have had to be replaced, as evidenced by the fact that most of them were not replaced after their retirement, is unconvincing. Their normally scheduled retirements would naturally give the Organization time to prepare and reorganize the work the complainants were doing, but it does not follow that the ICTP would be equally ready for the simultaneous early separation of six staff members. It is credible that the Organization thought that it might need to hire people to replace them at that time.

Keywords

agreed termination; motivation

Consideration 11

Extract:

[T]here is no element which leads the Tribunal to question this organizational evaluation of what is in the best interest of the Organization which is within the knowledge and the competence of the executive head (see, for example, Judgments 3858, consideration 12, and 2377, consideration 5).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3858

Keywords

discretion; organisation's interest

Consideration 13

Extract:

The requests for damages in respect of the delay in the internal appeal proceedings are unfounded. [T]he requests lacked substantiation as the complainants sought moral damages but advanced no evidence, or even argument, to support their claims.

Keywords

moral injury

Consideration 14

Extract:

[The complainant] contends inter alia that the fact that the impugned decision was not signed by the Director-General raises legitimate doubts as to who made the decision. This argument must be rejected. The letter from the Director of HRM [...] clearly states that “[t]he Director-General has asked me to inform you of the following [...]”. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3177, consideration 12, the authorized decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision and it is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177

Keywords

final decision

Consideration 15

Extract:

[T]he requests for costs for the internal appeals are unfounded. There is no provision which allows for an award of legal costs for the internal appeal proceedings and there are no exceptional circumstances in these cases which could justify such an award.

Keywords

costs; internal procedure; costs for internal appeal procedure



 
Last updated: 22.06.2020 ^ top