|
|
 |
|
|
Negligence (199,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Negligence
Total judgments found: 45
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5021
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la liquidation de ses droits à pension.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Dans la mesure où aucun accord avec la France n’a ainsi pu être signé, la condition à l’entrée en vigueur d’un régime de pension à prestations définies n’a pas été remplie.
Au-delà de simples affirmations non étayées de sa part, la requérante n’établit aucunement en quoi l’Organisation pourrait être taxée de carence fautive dans le non-accomplissement de cette condition ou dans le retard ou l’absence d’entrée en vigueur du régime permanent qui en a découlé.
Keywords:
negligence;
Judgment 4943
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to summarily dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; flaw; fraud; internal appeals body; material damages; moral damages; motivation; negligence;
Judgment 4942
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; flaw; fraud; internal appeals body; material damages; moral damages; motivation; negligence;
Judgment 4920
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of his internal appeal seeking compensation for Interpol’s alleged failure to inform him of the status of his same-sex marriage in prospective duty stations and to assist him in obtaining recognition of his husband as a dependent spouse in duty stations where national law did not recognise same-sex marriage.
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
Having regard to the legal elements of the cause of action based on negligence [...], one question which presently arises is whether Interpol failed to take reasonable steps to avoid injury to the complainant at the time he was offered and accepted the appointment in February 2017. Injury can presently be assumed. Interpol did not fail to do so. The complainant was prepared to, and did, accept the appointment and take up the position in Bangkok in April 2017 with the position of his husband unresolved, indeed unclear. That is not a matter for which Interpol should be held legally accountable, and the steps it took were reasonable. Accordingly, Interpol was not negligent offering the complainant the position and acting on his acceptance.
However, Interpol did fail to continue to investigate the position of the complainant’s husband and should have. But the complainant then confronts the difficulty of causation. That is to say, he must demonstrate that any financial or other loss, including moral damage, he suffered as a result of this failure (assuming it be negligence) was caused by Interpol. The short answer is that it was not. Any loss the complainant suffered, including loss of consortium, which would be a moral injury of sorts, flowed from his decision to accept the position without knowing his husband’s rights of entry and residence.
As noted earlier, the alleged negligence of Interpol may also comprehend, though this is not clear, its failure to facilitate the subsequent entry into Thailand of the complainant’s husband on terms acceptable to the complainant. How this could have been achieved by Interpol is far from obvious having regard to Thai law at the relevant time and Interpol’s obligations, including of its officials, under the Agreement between Interpol and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand regarding the Privileges and Immunities of the Interpol Office for South-East Asia in Bangkok (Headquarters Agreement with Thailand). This relevantly provides that “the laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Thailand [...] shall apply within the Office and to its activities” (Article 2), that Interpol international officials appointed by the Secretary General to carry out the functions of the Office “shall be permitted together with members of their families, in accordance with the laws and regulations of Thailand, to enter and stay in Thailand during the term of their assignment” (Article 11(5)), that the privileges and immunities provided for in the Headquarters Agreement with Thailand “are granted to those concerned [Interpol international officials serving in Thailand] not for their personal benefit but in the interest of the smooth functioning of the Organization” (Article 13(1)), and that “[n]othing in the [Headquarters Agreement with Thailand] shall affect the right of the Government [of Thailand] to take measures it considers necessary to safeguard national security or maintain law and order” (Article 13(3)). Importantly, the complainant does not establish what could have been, but was not, done to this end.
Keywords:
headquarters agreement; host state; negligence; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 4671
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Judgment 4670
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
[I]nterpol was negligent in several respects: firstly, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that it kept itself informed of changes to the French Social Security Code, such as that resulting in this case from the partial review of Article L. 131-9 of that Code by the Constitutional Council; secondly, it was unaware of the possibility of obtaining a retroactive refund of the unduly paid contributions provided for by Article L. 243-6 of the same Code; and, thirdly, even when it approached URSSAF and the host State’s authorities in 2019 with a view to obtaining a refund of the amounts deducted from its officials’ salaries in respect of the ESC, it failed to include in its requests the amounts corresponding to the sums deducted for the 2009-2012 period.
Having regard to the legal uncertainty referred to [...], which only the French authorities and courts could resolve, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was denied a valuable opportunity to receive a refund of the amounts of ESC deducted from her salary for the 2009-2012 period owing to Interpol’s negligence. In the circumstances of the case, the injury resulting from this loss of opportunity will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay the complainant compensation in an amount equivalent to half of the sums deducted from her salary for that period.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; negligence;
Judgment 4669
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; interest on arrears; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Judgment 4668
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
[I]nterpol was negligent in several respects: firstly, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that it kept itself informed of changes to the French Social Security Code, such as that resulting in this case from the partial review of Article L. 131-9 of that Code by the Constitutional Council; secondly, it was unaware of the possibility of obtaining a retroactive refund of the unduly paid contributions provided for by Article L. 243-6 of the same Code; and, thirdly, even when it approached URSSAF and the host State’s authorities in 2019 with a view to obtaining a refund of the amounts deducted from its officials’ salaries in respect of the ESC, it failed to include in its requests the amounts corresponding to the sums deducted for the 2009-2012 period.
Having regard to the legal uncertainty referred to [...], which only the French authorities and courts could resolve, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was denied a valuable opportunity to receive a refund of the amounts of ESC deducted from his salary for the 2009-2012 period owing to Interpol’s negligence. In the circumstances of the case, the injury resulting from this loss of opportunity will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay the complainant compensation in an amount equivalent to half of the sums deducted from his salary for that period.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; negligence;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[...] Interpol was negligent in several respects: firstly, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that it kept itself informed of changes to the French Social Security Code, such as that resulting in this case from the partial review of Article L. 131-9 of that Code by the Constitutional Council; secondly, it was unaware of the possibility of obtaining a retroactive refund of the unduly paid contributions provided for by Article L. 243-6 of the same Code; and, thirdly, even when it approached URSSAF and the host State’s authorities in 2019 with a view to obtaining a refund of the amounts deducted from its officials’ salaries in respect of the ESC, it failed to include in its requests the amounts corresponding to the sums deducted for the 2009-2012 period.
Having regard to the legal uncertainty referred to above, which only the French authorities and courts could resolve, the Tribunal considers that the complainants were denied a valuable opportunity to receive a refund of the amounts of ESC deducted from their salaries for the 2009-2012 period owing to Interpol’s negligence. In the circumstances of the case, the injury resulting from this loss of opportunity will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay each of the complainants compensation in an amount equivalent to half of the sums deducted from their salaries for that period.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; negligence;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4476
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who claims to be entitled to whistleblower status and requests the protection afforded thereby, challenges the failure to respond to his letter reporting what he considers to be unlawful by particular Court officials.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that the ICC was negligent in failing to provide an explicit response to the complainant’s request to the President of the Assembly of States Parties on 16 March 2017 until a letter was sent to him on 16 June 2017, three months later.
Such a delay cannot, of course, be regarded as unreasonable in absolute terms in respect of the processing of ordinary administrative requests, and it is important to point out that, contrary to what both parties to the dispute appear to consider, exceeding the 60-day period following the notification of a claim to which Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal refers is not in itself unlawful, but merely gives rise to an implied decision rejecting the claim.
However, the Tribunal considers that a request to be granted whistleblower status is inherently urgent and must be examined with particular speed, regardless of its merits, so that the official concerned can receive the protection afforded thereby as quickly as possible should the request prove warranted, or, at the very least, be informed of the decision taken on the matter.
Keywords:
administrative delay; negligence; whistle-blower;
Judgment 4239
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for health reasons and claims that the compensation she received for her service-incurred injury is grossly inadequate.
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law is settled on what constitutes a cause of action based on negligence. The cause of action contains several elements (see, for example, Judgment 3733, consideration 12). The first is that the organisation has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. The second is that liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. As noted in Judgment 3215, consideration 12, the word “injury” in this context is not used in any technical, legal or medical sense. Equally apt and often used is the word “damage”, which may be physical (including psychological), financial or, as is often the case, both. In the context of employment with an international organisation, physical damage or injury is more likely to be foundational to the claim though the damage could well be, as is alleged in this case, consequential financial damage occasioned by loss of earning capacity flowing from the physical injury.
However, another essential element of the cause of action is that the negligent act or omission caused the damage. That is to say, there must be a causal link between the conduct complained of and the damage suffered. Moreover, the person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based (see, for example, Judgment 3215, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3215, 3733
Keywords:
cause of action; negligence;
Judgment 4222
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of UNESCO to award full compensation for the injury suffered as a result of an accident recognized as being service-incurred.
Considerations 15-17
Extract:
According to article 4 of the Staff Compensation Plan:
“The compensation payable under these Rules shall be the sole compensation to which any person shall be entitled as against the Organization in respect of any claim falling within the provisions thereof”.
Contrary to the defendant organization’s submissions, these provisions do not preclude a staff member from claiming compensation for the consequences of negligence on the part of the Organization. Such a claim cannot be regarded as being based on the provisions of this plan (see, for similar cases, Judgments 3689, consideration 5, and 3946, consideration 17).
[...]
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an organization may incur liability in negligence where it fails to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury (see Judgments 2804, consideration 25, 3215, consideration 12, and 3733, consideration 12). In the instant case, it is apparent from the file that the floor of the podium set up for the seminar was defective and should have been repaired or, at least, signposted, as evidenced by the occurrence of the accident.[...]
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate environment for its staff, and they in turn have the right to insist on appropriate measures to protect their health and safety (see Judgments 3025, consideration 2, 2403, consideration 16, and 3689, consideration 5).
In the instant case, the Organization, which had ordered the construction of the podium in which the hole was found, should have ensured that this work was properly carried out. It must therefore be recognized that the Organization is at fault.
Pursuant to the principle that full compensation is due in respect of injuries caused by negligence on the part of the Administration, the complainant is entitled to compensation for injuries not already compensated under the Staff Compensation Plan.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2403, 2804, 3025, 3215, 3689, 3689, 3733, 3946
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; construction work; negligence; professional accident;
Judgment 3946
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amounts she was awarded for the delay in processing her request for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 17
Extract:
A claim for compensation for “actual and consequential” injuries is an entirely different claim that extends an organisation’s liability beyond its liability under a no-fault regime. As the Tribunal has consistently held, establishing such a claim requires proof of negligence on the part of the organization or the intentional breach of a duty (see Judgment 2843, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2843
Keywords:
injury; liability; negligence;
Judgment 3733
123rd Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision dismissing his two internal appeals on health-related claims.
Consideration 12
Extract:
A cause of action by an official based on the negligence of the organisation that employs her or him contains several elements (see, for example, Judgment 2804, consideration 25). The first is that the organisation has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. The second is that liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804
Keywords:
cause of action; negligence;
Judgment 3250
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was recognized as a victim of institutional harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"While the conduct of management which is necessary and reasonable would not constitute harassment, the present case demonstrates how continued mismanagement showing gross negligence on the part of the Organization cannot justify any longer the “managerial need” for the repeated temporary transfers of the complainant which had an ill effect on her. Taken individually, the isolated incidents [...] can perhaps be considered as improper but managerially justified, but taken as a whole the effect is much more damaging to the complainant and can no longer be excused by administrative necessity."
Keywords:
harassment; injury; institutional harassment; negligence; organisation's duties; professional injury; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 3215
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; negligence; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; material damages; negligence; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred; working conditions;
Judgment 3141
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 35 to 37
Extract:
The Tribunal must emphasise that the manner in which WHO handled this case amounted to serious wrongdoing. The abrupt termination of the complainant’s appointment after the measures adopted by the Swiss authorities was prompted by an anomalous situation which, although it was primarily due to the complainant’s unlawful presence in Switzerland dating back several years, was also the result of grave malfunctioning within the Organization.
Indeed, when recruiting its officials an international organisation must ensure that their status complies with the laws of the host State governing the residence of aliens, failing which it may be held to have abused the privileges and immunities conferred upon it and upon its staff members.
In the instant case WHO acted with great negligence from this point of view since, as is plain from the file, it failed to carry out any checks to ascertain the complainant’s status in this respect when he was recruited and when his appointment was extended on the first two occasions. This negligence was aggravated when the complainant then submitted an application for a legitimation card, because the Organization mechanically forwarded this application to the Permanent Mission of Switzerland, although the complainant merely produced the above-mentioned power of attorney with the letterhead of the UNIA trade union as proof that he was lawfully present in Switzerland. Clearly this document could not be deemed in any way to be the equivalent of a residence permit issued by the Swiss authorities, or even as a guarantee that the complainant’s status would be regularised in the near future.
Keywords:
host state; negligence; termination of employment;
Judgment 3134
113th Session, 2012
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t is not disputed that the Secretary of the Provident Scheme gave a positive oral response to the complainant's request and assured him that the transfer would be effected as soon as the agreement had been signed, and there is no doubt that in so doing the Secretary was acting in the exercise of his functions. The complainant could therefore assume in good faith that his rights would be transfered to the UNJSPF without his having to approach the Fund himself, in the manner provided for in Article 4 of the Agreement.
The Provident Scheme did not, however, effect the expected transfer, as the letter [...] from its Secretary shows, nor does that letter explain why it had omitted to do so. It follows that the UPU has been negligent in this regard. It is clear that there is a sufficient causal link between its negligence and the injury suffered by the complainant, the amount of which remains to be determined.
Keywords:
causal link; injury; negligence;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Even though [...] the Organisation was entitled to reverse the decision wrongly promoting the complainant to grade A5, the factual error on which its initial decision rested was nonetheless negligent. By submitting a draft decision whose content had not been properly checked for signature by the President, the services of the Organisation displayed gross negligence, which is even less excusable in view of the fact that individual decisions on promotion are of a particularly sensitive nature. The complainant obviously had cause to be extremely disappointed because, having been notified of this decision, he was then told that it had been reversed and that he had been promoted simply to grade A(2). By proceeding in this manner the EPO breached the duty which the Tribunal's case law establishes for every international organisation not to cause its staff unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgments 1526, under 3, or 2007, under 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1526, 2007
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; injury; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation's duties; promotion; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 91 and 93
Extract:
"[T]he complainant seeks damages for the publication in the [Organization] monthly information bulletin that she had been separated from service, in the English version, and dismissed from service ('démise de ses fonctions') in the French version. The publication of this information was contrary to the Secretary-General's instructions but, even if published negligently, [the Organization] is liable for the damage occasioned to the complainant's reputation and dignity. In this regard, it was said in Judgment 2720 that 'international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members' (see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371 and 2475). It was also pointed out in Judgment 2720 that that obligation extends to former staff members."
"There will be an award of material and moral damages in relation to the publication [...]. However, account will be taken of the facts that the publication resulted from negligence, not malice, that it was speedily withdrawn and that the Secretary-General apologised to the complainant. In Judgment 2720 mentioned above the Tribunal held that, in the case of a continuing duty of an organisation to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the reputation or dignity of its staff members, the Tribunal may order performance of that duty, including by ordering the publication of material to restore a person's reputation. The complainant seeks an order of that kind in the present case. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that her honour and reputation will be sufficiently vindicated by this judgment and by an award of damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475, 2720
Keywords:
compensation; damages; judgment of the tribunal; material injury; moral injury; negligence; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
