Judgment No. 3905
Decision
1. The Registrar’s decision of 23 March 2016 is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the ICC for consideration in accordance with consideration 18 of the judgment.
3. The ICC shall pay the complainant moral damages in the sum of 20,000 euros.
4. The ICC shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 4,000 euros.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation
Consideration 15
Extract:
It is evident that, in its report of 22 February 2016, the Appeals Board viewed the notification of the abolition of the complainant’s position and the termination of his appointment in the letter of 16 June as the communication of a single decision. This was a fundamental error of law. Decisions to abolish a post and terminate an appointment are separate and distinct decisions.
Keywords
internal appeals body; abolition of post; termination of employment; mistake of law
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Appeals Board’s premise that the abolition of the position and the termination of the appointment were a single decision also led it to ascribe erroneously the clarity of the communication of the decision to abolish the position to the separate and distinct decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment. Given the perceived clarity of the communication of the “decision”, the Appeals Board did not consider whether there were exceptional circumstances beyond the complainant’s control warranting a waiver of the thirty-day time limit as it was mandated to do by Staff Rule 111.3(b) and concluded that the appeal was irreceivable. As the Registrar in making his decision adopted the Appeals Board’s findings and conclusions and accepted its recommendation, that decision is tainted by the Appeals Board’s errors of fact and law and will be set aside.
Keywords
late appeal
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]here are clearly grounds on which a conclusion could be reached that there were exceptional circumstances and the Appeals Board should have waived compliance with the time limits and considered the appeal on the merits. The case will be remitted to the ICC for that purpose.
Keywords
case sent back to organisation
| 
