Judgment No. 3768
Decision
1. The ITER Organization shall pay the complainant moral damages in the sum of 10,000 euros within 30 days of the date of public delivery of this Judgment.
2. The ITER Organization shall also pay the complainant 750 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his contract following the abolition of his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; abolition of post; non-renewal of contract
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that although the Director-General’s power not to renew a contract upon its expiry is discretionary, it must be exercised within the bounds of an international organization’s own regulations, rules and directives. The Tribunal’s case law also imposes obligations and provides guidelines which an international organization must observe where it does not renew a staff member’s fixed-term contract.
Substantively, the case law states that a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract must be based on objective and valid grounds and that the discretionary nature of a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract may be reviewed only on limited grounds. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. It will only set aside such a decision if it is ultra vires; if the decision is tainted by a legal or procedural irregularity; is based on incorrect facts; if essential facts have not been considered or wrong conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or if the decision is based on an error of fact or law or amounts to an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2850, 2861, 3299
Keywords
non-renewal of contract
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the [...] Organization’s failure to disclose to the complainant “the documents related to staffing strategies” on the ground that “they constitute confidential managerial documents” was a procedural flaw. These are the documents which would have assisted the complainant, in the context of the mediation process, to understand the actions, rationale and decision to abolish his post. While the [...] Organization disclosed them to the Mediator, it refused to disclose them to the complainant. This was in breach of the principle of procedural fairness as well as the Organization’s duty of care to the complainant entitling him to moral damages [...].
Keywords
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence
|
