Judgment No. 4404
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant seeks reimbursement of an amount wrongly deducted from her pay owing to double national taxation of her income, and compensation for the moral injury allegedly suffered as a result.
settlement out of court; failure to exhaust internal remedies; settlement agreement; complaint dismissed
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgment 2366, consideration 16, confirmed by Judgments 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3700, consideration 14, 3876, consideration 5, and 3961, consideration 4).
In this case, the email [...], the sole purpose of which was to invite the complainant to submit documents deemed necessary by the organisation’s services so that the deductions could be reimbursed, was merely a step in preparation for the decision that would ultimately be taken as to the payment of the sums in question. That email cannot therefore be construed as constituting a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and could not, therefore, be impugned before the Tribunal (for a similar case involving a request for the production of supporting documents required for the examination of an application for financial benefits, see Judgment 3876, considerations 4 and 5).
It follows that the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961
disclosure of evidence; impugned decision; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; step in the procedure
Nevertheless, the Tribunal is aware that, although the dismissal of the complaint is necessary from a legal point of view, it will not put an end to the dispute between the complainant and the ACP Group. While the Tribunal notes that the ACP Group, in its written submissions, states it is prepared to resolve this dispute by means of an amicable settlement between the parties, the Tribunal observes that it does not, however, appear able by itself to offer the complainant an adequate response to her claims. On an entirely exceptional basis, the Tribunal will therefore set out below, purely for guidance, what would appear to be the most appropriate terms for such a settlement, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
settlement out of court; settlement agreement