Judgment No. 4501
Decision
1. The decision of the Director-General of UNESCO of 24 January 2020, as well as the decision of 1 July 2013, the implied decision not to extend the complainant’s appointment until the end of her sick leave and the Chief Medical Officer’s decision of 2 January 2013 are set aside.
2. UNESCO shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 500 euros.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment beyond its expiry date while she was on sick leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; sick leave
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, although the complainant did not formally lodge her protest pursuant to the aforementioned provisions until 12 April 2013, on 25 February 2013, that is, within the aforementioned two-month time-limit, she had sent an email to the Director of HRM in which she already challenged the refusal to extend her appointment until the end of her sick leave in a reasoned, clear and explicit fashion. Under the Tribunal’s case law, an email with this type of content must be regarded as an appeal which, even if not submitted in the prescribed manner, must be treated as such and, if need be, forwarded to the authority competent to deal with it (see, in particular, Judgment 3424, consideration 8(a) and (b), and the case law cited therein).
Keywords
internal appeal
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is well established by the case law that the principle of res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding only where the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see, for example, Judgments 1216, consideration 3, 2993, consideration 6, 3248, consideration 3, 3867, consideration 9, 3950, consideration 6, and 4183, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3248, 3867, 3950, 4183
Keywords
res judicata
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A] decision that is set aside by the Tribunal is deemed never to have been taken, owing to the retrospective effect of that setting aside (see, for example, Judgment 1306, consideration 6). As the Tribunal has stated, for this reason, “any subsequent or consequential decision based entirely on a decision that has been set aside necessarily lacks legal foundation and is a nullity” (see Judgment 3107, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 3107
Keywords
decision quashed
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he compensation awarded to the complainant in Judgment 4170, which had the effect of rendering moot the financial claims made in her appeal, had thus removed the essential issue from the dispute, which, under the Tribunal’s case law, precludes recognition of injury arising from the undue length of the internal appeal procedure (see, for example, on that point, Judgment 4493, considerations 8 and 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4170, 4493
Keywords
moral injury; delay in internal procedure
|
