ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 135th Session

Judgment No. 4631


The complaints are dismissed.


The complainant challenges the decision to treat his participation in a strike as an unauthorised absence and the decision to issue him a reprimand for subsequent unauthorised absences on days when he was likewise participating in strikes.

Judgment keywords


moral injury; strike; complaint dismissed

Consideration 2


Much of the argument of the complainant in his pleas appears to proceed on the premise that if there was a legal error attending a decision, or delay in the making of a decision, or delay in the finalisation of an appeal or proceedings in the Tribunal, then, without more, an entitlement to moral damages arises. As noted in another judgment given this session (Judgment 4644, under 7), this premise is incorrect. Moral damages are awarded for moral injury and the complainant bears the burden of proving that injury and the causal link with the unlawful conduct of the defendant organisation (see, for example, Judgments 4157, consideration 7, 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, and 2471, consideration 5). Delay, of itself, does not entitle a complainant to moral damages (see, for example, Judgments 4487, consideration 14, 4396, consideration 12, 4231, consideration 15, and 4147, consideration 13). Without attempting to describe, exhaustively, what might constitute moral injury, it includes emotional distress, anxiety, stress, anguish and hardship (see, for example, Judgments 4519, consideration 14, 4156, consideration 6, and 3138, considerations 8 and 14). There is no persuasive evidence of moral injury to the complainant (beyond the moral injury for a threat of the same character as compensated in Judgment 4433 and for which compensation has already been paid to the complainant) in respect of any of the events for which he seeks moral damages caused by the conduct of the EPO, even if unlawful. Specifically, the complainant’s claim for moral damages because of the apparently hypocritical nature (as he alleges) of the EPO’s additional submissions in these proceedings is plainly untenable. Accordingly, his complaints should, insofar as the complainant seeks moral damages, be dismissed.


ILOAT Judgment(s): 2471, 3138, 3778, 4147, 4156, 4157, 4231, 4396, 4433, 4487, 4519, 4644


moral injury; delay; moral damages

Last updated: 08.03.2023 ^ top