Judgment No. 4254
1. The decision of the Director-General of 31 May 2018 is set aside, except as regards the award of 2,500 Swiss francs for moral damages. The decisions of 30 October 2015 and 2 August 2016 are also set aside.
2. The ILO shall pay the complainant 750 Swiss francs in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
complaint allowed; decision quashed; retirement; age limit; retirement age
The complainant requests an oral hearing on some of the issues raised in his complaint. However, the Tribunal considers that it is sufficiently well informed about the case by the evidence in the file and does not therefore deem it necessary to hold such a hearing.
As the Tribunal has consistently held, a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1143, consideration 3, 2845, consideration 5, 3285, consideration 10, 3765, consideration 2, or 3884, consideration 2).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 2845, 3285, 3765, 3884
age limit; discretion; retirement age
[T]he principle that a rule is applicable to an official only from the date on which it is brought to her or his notice [...] is well established in the Tribunal’case law (see, for example, Judgments 963, consideration 5, 2575, consideration 6, 3835, consideration 2, and 3884, consideration 13).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 963, 2575, 3835, 3884
[T]he rules applied must be communicated to those concerned before the initial decision is taken.
duty to inform
The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the “extension of [his] contract retroactively from the date on which [he] left the International Labour Office [...] on 31 January 2016 up to the age of 65 years with the same status that [he] had before leaving the Office”. However, that period having expired by the date of this judgment, the Tribunal cannot, in any event, order that the complainant be reinstated as he requests.
[T]he Tribunal can but recall that what is in the interest of an organisation may be decided at the discretion of its executive head (see Judgments 2105, consideration 17, and 4084, consideration 13).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2105, 4084