Judgment No. 3919
Decision
1. The Director-General’s decisions of 11 August 2015 and 13 March 2014 are set aside.
2. The complainant’s claim for compensation is remitted to WHO for the ACCC’s consideration in accordance with considerations 14 and 15 of the judgment.
3. WHO shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 7,500 Swiss francs.
4. WHO shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 5,000 Swiss francs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant impugns the Director-General’s decision to reject her claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; illness; service-incurred
Considerations 13 & 14
Extract:
Contrary to WHO’s assertion, there is no evidence to support its contention of the ACCC having made a thorough analysis. [...]
[I]t is observed that in arriving at the conclusion that there were no valid reasons for the claim to be accepted for consideration, the Director-General did not take into consideration that the progressive nature of the complainant’s illness and all of her relevant surrounding personal circumstances presented valid reasons for making the claim for compensation on the date that she did.
Keywords
evidence; illness; compensation
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
[T]he HBA and, in turn, the Director-General found that all of the relevant facts of the case had been taken into account. However, it is observed that in arriving at the conclusion that there were no valid reasons for the claim to be accepted for consideration, the Director-General did not take into consideration that the progressive nature of the complainant's illness and all of her relevant surrounding personal circumstances presented valid reasons for making the claim for compensation on the date that she did.
Accordingly, the Director-General's decision of 11 August 2015 and that of 13 March 2014 will be set aside, and the complainant's claim for compensation will be remitted to WHO for the ACCC's consideration of whether the complainant's two identified illnesses can be attributed to the performance of official duties.
Keywords
case sent back to organisation
| 
