126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Full Judgment Text: EN,
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting her request for payment of interest on the lump sum paid to her in respect of her separation entitlements.
complaint dismissed; interest on termination entitlements; payment;
The complainant’s assertion that interest began to accrue on the amount due for the separation entitlements is rejected. In Judgment 3650, under 8, the Tribunal stated:
“One specific argument advanced by the complainant was based on Judgment 2282 in which the Tribunal ordered that the IAEA pay the disputed terminal allowances plus interest from the date on which each claim for terminal allowance had been filed by the complainant. In this matter, the complainant noted that under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules there was no entitlement to interest in relation to the payment of terminal allowances. However the Tribunal notes that that case involved the awarding of pre-judgment interest from the date the cause of action accrued. This is a power not infrequently exercised by courts. However Judgment 2282 does not support a proposition that a right to payment of an amount under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules carries with it a right to payment of interest from the time the amount was claimed to the time it was paid.”
Moreover, the complainant’s reliance on statements made in Judgments 2782, under 6(a), and 874, under 3, to support her assertion is misplaced. The facts in those two cases are materially different from those in the present case and, as such, the statements relied upon have no application to the facts in this case.
[T]he complainant submits that “as a general principle interest should be paid on past due sums or, as in this case, payments made without any just reason for delay”. She points out that as the IAEA was able to provide her with an estimate of the amount of the separation entitlements in March 2013, the IAEA had ample time to calculate the final amount of the separation entitlements by the date of her separation and those entitlements should have been paid on that date or at the latest on 6 August 2013. This statement is purely conjecture on the part of the complainant. It ignores the possibility of intervening matters that may affect the final calculation, the complexity of the calculation and, importantly, the fact that the calculation cannot be made until the clearance process is completed. Although the Administration provided the complainant with the relevant clearance certificate on 4 March 2013 and asked for its return before 31 July 2013, the complainant returned the certificate on 7 August 2013. Further, given that the entitlement to the payment of separation entitlements does not arise until the date of the separation from service, the fact that the Administration gave the complainant an estimate of the amount of separation entitlements is irrelevant in terms of the question of unreasonable delay. Furthermore, in this case there was no delay in the payment of the separation entitlements.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 874, 2282, 2782, 3650
interest on termination entitlements;