L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > invalidité

Judgment No. 3396

Decision

1. WHO shall pay the complainant an amount equal to the sum of all periodic pension payments plus interest that were payable under paragraph 10(a) of Annex 7.E to the WHO Manual between 11 May 2010 and the date of delivery of this Judgment or an earlier date determined under paragraph 2 of this order.
2. “An earlier date” for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 4 of this order, is a date on which the complainant’s total invalidity ceased (as provided for in paragraph 10(a) of Annex 7.E) in the opinion of two independent psychiatrists whose opinion WHO has or obtains within 60 days of the date of delivery of this judgment.
3. Interest at the rate of 5 per cent shall be payable under paragraph 1 of this order in relation to each periodic pension payment from the date it would have been paid under paragraph 10(a) of Annex 7.E.
4. WHO shall pay the complainant a pension under paragraph 10(a) of Annex 7.E unless and until a determination is made under paragraph 30 of Annex 7.E or the complainant’s invalidity has ceased for the purposes of Section III of Annex 7.E in the opinion of two independent psychiatrists whose opinion WHO obtains. Provided that this paragraph has no application if “an earlier date” has been established under paragraph 2 of this order.
5. For the purpose of implementing paragraphs 2 and 4, the complainant shall comply with any reasonable request of WHO to attend at the office of a psychiatrist for examination.
6. WHO shall pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral damages.
7. WHO shall pay the complainant 1,000 euros in costs.
8. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

In relation with the complainant's service-incurred illness, the Tribunal concluded that she was entitled to an invalidity payment.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

complaint allowed; illness; service-incurred; invalidity

Consideration 13

Extract:

"Although the threshold question as to whether the complainant had a “continuing” invalidity was properly identified, in the course of the communications it appears that from WHO’s perspective the meaning of the term “continuing” involved the question as to whether the condition was permanent or long-term, on the one hand, or temporary on the other hand. This interpretation is incorrect. The continuing nature of a condition is simply whether it will, at the time of diagnosis and prognosis, continue into the future for, if known, anything other than a brief period or continue with an unknown end date. This erroneous approach, in turn, led to a rejection of the medical opinions which do sustain a conclusion that the complainant was suffering from a continuing total invalidity even though the doctors did not say this would continue long-term or was permanent."

Keywords

invalidity

Consideration 16

Extract:

"[T]he delay in resolving the issue whether the 16.complainant was entitled to a continuing total invalidity pension has undoubtedly caused the complainant considerable stress and anxiety which is all the more regrettable and serious having regard to what appears to be, or at least was, her psychiatric condition. For this she is entitled to moral damages [...]."

Keywords

moral injury



 
Dernière mise à jour: 24.06.2020 ^ haut