Judgment No. 4535
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to separate him from service on 31 October 2018, being the date on which he reached his retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of his appointment beyond retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
extension of contract; un common system; retirement age; complaint dismissed
Consideration 11
Extract:
Generally, the process of review creates an opportunity for an Administration to reconsider an administrative decision earlier made and the correctness of that decision. It can, in this process, make a decision rectifying or remedying any deficiencies in that earlier decision. That is what happened in the present case. Thus, the 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords
internal procedure; moral damages
Consideration 12
Extract:
The exhibit containing the memorandum of 9 November 2018 […] also contained the decision of the Director-General signed on 13 November 2018. The format of the memorandum is not atypical in administrative decision-making, particularly by senior officials. The format involves a brief written by a subordinate setting out the facts even if in a summary way and, if qualified, advancing their own preliminary views about the merits of the case being addressed (or repeats in a summary way the views of other qualified officials) while inviting the senior official to make their own decision often by electing between one or a number of choices to be simply signified by, literally, ticking a box. In this case, the Director-General did just that by ticking a box saying that he did not grant the exceptional extension for the complainant. However, it cannot be inferred, as the complainant invites, that the Director-General did not bring to bear his own views and reach his own conclusion, after reading the memorandum of 9 November 2018, about whether the complainant’s appointment should be extended notwithstanding the view recorded in the memorandum that HRD did not support granting the exceptional extension.
Keywords
administrative decision
|
