Judgment No. 4531
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 31 August 2018, being the date on which she reached her retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of her appointment beyond retirement age.
extension of contract; un common system; retirement age; complaint dismissed
[T]he failure of the Director-General to initially consider the extension request himself, was remedied by him doing so in the administrative review. An aspect of this is reflected in the Tribunal’s case law, which decides that the mere fact that a decision was initially flawed but was later corrected does not suffice to warrant awarding damages for moral injury (see Judgment 4156, consideration 5).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
flaw; moral damages; administrative decision
[T]hese pleas fail to recognise the wide discretionary power acknowledged and accepted by the Tribunal vested in an executive head to make decisions to retain officials beyond the normal retirement age and the concomitant limits on review by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 2669, consideration 8, and 4016, consideration 10). [...]
Notwithstanding the preceding discussion about the width of the discretionary power of an executive head to extend an appointment and the limited scope of review by the Tribunal, such a decision can be challenged on the basis that the power has not been exercised bona fide or, described more generally, involved an abuse of authority.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2669, 4016
discretion; retirement age; abuse of power