Judgment No. 1486
1. THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE ORGANIZATION SO THAT IT MAYDETERMINE HIS ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND STAFF RULES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE HEPATITIS B WHICH HE CONTRACTED IN CHAD IN AUGUST 1993 WAS INCURRED IN THE ORGANIZATION'S SERVICE.
2. THE FAO SHALL PAY HIM 2,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COSTS.
3. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
"It is true that Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires a complainant, before he files suit with the Tribunal, not just to apply for internal review but also to await the outcome of the internal proceedings. Yet that is not a hard-and-fast rule, even though the Statute does not allow any express derogation. If a complainant does his utmost to procure a decision, and if nevertheless the internal appeals body evinces by its statements or conduct an intention not to report within a reasonable time, justice requires that an exception be made. A mere failure to proceed with all proper speed and diligence is not enough: it is only if the proceedings have been so protracted that the delay is inordinate, unexplained and inexcusable that such an intention will be inferred: see Judgments 408 [...] and 451 [...]."
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 408, 451
receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; administrative delay; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit; exception; reasonable time; case law; iloat statute
"The complainant had done everything in his power to exhaust his internal remedies and [at a certain date] it was quite clear that the internal process of review would not be concluded within a time which the Tribunal may regard as reasonable in the circumstances. [...] The complaint is therefore receivable."
receivability of the complaint; administrative delay; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit; exception; reasonable time; iloat statute
"When the defendant organisation submits a reply it must enable the Tribunal to render a complete ruling on the dispute. If it chooses to argue only procedural issues, that may - even if it does not so intend - amount to dilatory tactics that hold up the ruling, and the risk is that the Tribunal may treat the complainant's allegations of fact as established."
submissions; reply; reply confined to receivability
"The Tribunal concludes that the complainant's illness must be assumed to have been directly due to his assignment by the FAO to an area posing a special hazard to his health, to have occurred as a result of that hazard, and therefore to be service-incurred within the meaning of Manual Paragraph 342.213."
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 342.213 OF THE FAO MANUAL
field; staff regulations and rules; duty station; special hazard; illness; service-incurred