Judgment No. 4855
Decision
1. The FAO shall pay the complainant 12,000 euros moral damages.
2. The FAO shall pay the complainant 10,000 euros costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty to substantiate decision; moral injury; breach; appointment; competition; duty of care; selection procedure; moral damages
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the executive head of an international organisation, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; recommendation; impugned decision
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; remand; duty of care; impugned decision
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n this case, the moral injury occasioned by a failure to motivate a decision rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeal body is tolerably clear as is the Organization’s breach of its duty, as found by the Appeals Committee. The complainant is entitled to moral damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 12,000 euros.
Keywords
moral injury; internal appeals body; recommendation; breach; duty of care; impugned decision; moral damages
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Mr P. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords
recommendation; burden of proof; competition; selection board; bias; selection procedure; discrimination; bad faith; prejudice
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant sought oral proceedings, but the Tribunal is satisfied it is in a position to make a fair and balanced decision having regard to the written material provided by the parties.
Keywords
oral proceedings
| 
