Staff member's interest (208,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff member's interest
Total judgments found: 126
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 5152
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of the measures taken following the Organization’s acknowledgment of the violation of its duty of care towards him and asks that it be ordered to publish a press release to clear his reputation and to pay him additional amounts in moral damages and legal “fees”.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot, however, accept the complainant’s fourth and last argument that UNAIDS violated its duty of care by placing him on special leave with full pay or that the subsequent extensions thereof were invalid. Pursuant to Staff Rule 650.2, the Executive Director had the authority to place a staff member on special leave with full pay if he considered that it was in the interest of the Organization to do so. There were no other criteria in the applicable provisions limiting the exercise of this discretion by the Executive Director. To suggest that the Executive Director should have given priority, at that time, to the complainant’s interests and the protection of his reputation over those of the Organization would invite the Tribunal to second-guess what was otherwise a reasonable exercise of discretion by the executive head of the Organization faced with the situation that he then had to manage.
Keywords:
duty of care; investigation; leave with pay; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; staff member's interest;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal case law has it that, as a general rule, the Tribunal does not have the competence to issue injunctions against international organisations (see, for example, Judgments 5057, consideration 22 (order to institute disciplinary proceedings), 5045, consideration 19 (order the issuance of a directive), 4802, consideration 2 (order to publish an internal decision), 4065, consideration 9 (order to issue an official announcement to clear reputation), 4039, consideration 17 (order to provide apologies), 3506, consideration 18 (order to instruct an organisation to do something), and 2626, consideration 13 (order to sanction staff members)). When addressing this issue recognizing that its competence in this regard is limited, the Tribunal indeed refers to the expression of not having the competence to “order injunctions of this kind” (see, for example, Judgment 5045, consideration 19). But in a situation like this one, where the context involves a clear defamatory statement circulated by an international organization and affecting a complainant’s honour and reputation, the Tribunal is prepared to proceed on the basis of the approach in Judgment 2720, considerations 17 and 18.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2626, 2720, 3506, 4039, 4065, 4802, 5045, 5057
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he email with the “talking points” circulated […] left little doubt that the UNAIDS staff member to whom it referred was indeed the complainant. As well, by alluding to the fact that the Organization had a zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment, it was clearly publicly linking the complainant to this kind of behaviour. Secondly, the record shows that the Organization made similar references and allusions in its press release […]. Later on, […] in her interview to a major press agency, a UNAIDS spokesperson referred to the complainant having been placed on administrative leave over sexual harassment allegations when, in fact, the complainant had been placed on special leave due to general allegations of misconduct pursuant to the notification that he had received from the Organization […]. The Tribunal agrees with the complainant’s assertion that the circulation of this incorrect, misleading but nevertheless detailed information, both internally and to the press, was inappropriate and in violation of the Organization’s duty to refrain from conduct that may harm the dignity and reputation of its officials. […]. These communications were a serious affront to the complainant’s name, professional reputation and dignity, reflecting adversely on his person while infringing on his privacy.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty of discretion; organisation's duties; professional injury; professional reputation; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[S]till on the violation of the Organization’s duty of care, the complainant further argues that UNAIDS failed to take the necessary concrete measures to ensure a prompt correction of the inaccurate public statements made internally and to the press. On this point, the Tribunal observes that even though the GBA report identified a fault of UNAIDS and that the latter acknowledged its violation of its duty of care in the impugned decision, the actions taken to remedy the harm done, considering the nature of its communications and press release, were insufficient and less than what would have been expected from an international organisation. Having affected, albeit not intentionally or maliciously, the complainant’s reputation and image through what were incomplete and misleading public statements, it was reasonable to expect the Organization to redress the situation through similar public means, which it refused to do. The Tribunal considers that UNAIDS’ mere removal of the inaccurate press release from its website and its action to correct its spokesperson’s inaccurate characterization of the nature of the complainant’s leave to the press agency were insufficient in this respect. More required to be done in that context.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; organisation's duties; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The press release issued by UNAIDS on 14 September 2018 caused prejudice to the complainant’s honour and reputation. Similarly to the situation that prevailed in Judgment 2720, the Organization was, pursuant to its duty of care, under a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the injury it caused to the complainant. The Tribunal has the authority to order specific performance of such an obligation, bearing in mind that the nature of the specific performance that is to be ordered must be clear and unambiguous so that it does not lead to further disputes between the parties. […] The order of the Tribunal in this respect should rather be kept as simple as possible. […]. This, in the Tribunal’s view, is the proper way to vindicate the harm caused to the reputation of the complainant because of the Organization’s violations of its duty of care towards him. Given that press statements publicly accessible on mediums like the Internet end up remaining available for very long periods of time after their initial publication, issuing such an order in the circumstances remains appropriate even though the relevant events go back many years.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2720
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
Judgment 5035
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de rejet de ses demandes de remboursement spécial des frais de garde-malade de son épouse.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, il est de règle, en matière d’interprétation des textes, qu’il convient de donner aux mots leur sens évident et ordinaire et que les termes d’un texte doivent être analysés de manière objective en fonction de leur contexte, de leur objet et de leur but (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4959, au considérant 8, 4796, au considérant 3, 4066, au considérant 7, 4031, au considérant 5, ou 3744, au considérant 8).
Lorsque, après mise en œuvre de cette méthode d’interprétation, subsiste une ambiguïté dans le texte à appliquer, les dispositions statutaires ou réglementaires édictées par une organisation internationale doivent, par principe, être interprétées dans le sens favorable aux intérêts de ses fonctionnaires, et non à ceux de l’organisation elle-même (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4639, au considérant 3, 3539, au considérant 8, 3355, au considérant 16, 2396, au considérant 3 a), 2276, au considérant 4, ou 1755, au considérant 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1755, 2276, 2396, 3355, 3539, 3744, 4031, 4066, 4639, 4796, 4959
Keywords:
interpretation of rules; staff member's interest;
Judgment 4849
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to convert his fixed-term appointment into a continuing or permanent appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; permanent appointment; renewal of contrat; staff member's interest;
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Quite apart from any effect on the personal circumstances of a chief of a section or department, the Tribunal’s case law endorses the practice of requiring consultation with such a person in relation to plans for the reorganisation of the relevant section or department, and to not consult would ordinarily constitute a serious failure to respect the dignity of that person (see, for example, Judgments 3353, consideration 30, 3071, consideration 30, and 2861, consideration 27). In this limited context, this would be particularly so if the reorganisation had an adverse effect on the personal circumstances of the individual section or departmental chief, though this is not to suggest any member of staff adversely affected by a reorganisation must be consulted before the reorganisation occurs.
However, in this case, the rather unusual circumstances inform the content of WIPO’s duty to consult. As just noted, it is reasonable to characterise the position of the complainant as having only been nominally the Director of CID in late 2017 and early 2018. However, and notwithstanding, an attempt was made to engage with him about the proposed reorganisation, though this was resisted by the complainant, on the basis being suggested, because of his ill health. In the Tribunal’s view, the basis being suggested by WIPO was, overall, reasonable. The complainant took the position, probably legitimately, that in the circumstances, him replying in writing within four days of the email of 18 December 2017 was too burdensome given his state of health. However, he also rejected the suggestion that he take the opportunity of discussing the matter by phone with the Deputy Director General. Again, he did so because, as he put it, of the state of his health. It was not at all obvious that, at this point in very late 2017, any effective consultation could take place and it was, therefore, open to the Deputy Director General to pursue the proposed reorganisation without input from the complainant.
There is nothing in the material before the Tribunal which would warrant a conclusion that WIPO should have proceeded, in relation to its obligation to consult, on the basis that the complainant would imminently return from sick leave and actively manage the CID or, potentially, whatever organisational division might replace it. Indeed, all the signs at that time were, including the approach adopted by the complainant to the invitation to discuss the proposed reorganisation by phone, that this would not occur.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 3071, 3353
Keywords:
organisation's duties; reorganisation; sick leave; staff member's interest;
Judgment 4057
127th Session, 2019
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her pension on the basis of a reduction of the consumer price index.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The rule or principle of interpretation is that a clause in a document should be interpreted in favour of the party who did not draft the clause (in this case the staff), and not in favour of the party who did draft the clause, sought the inclusion of the clause or possibly in whose interests the clause was intended to operate (that is to say contra proferentem). However this rule, whatever its width, only operates in circumstances where the clause is ambiguous (see, for example, Judgment 1755, consideration 12, and, more recently, Judgment 3355, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1755, 3355
Keywords:
contra proferentem; interpretation; interpretation of rules; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3355
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[I]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that when the regulations or rules of an international organisation are ambiguous they must in principle be construed in favour of the interests of its staff and not those of the organisation itself (see, for example, Judgments 1755, under 12, 2276, under 4, or 2396, under 3(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1755, 2276, 2396
Keywords:
interpretation; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3353
118th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the non-renewal of their contracts following a restructuring process and obtain moral damages for the serious affront to their dignity and the failure to give reasonable notice.
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s case law states that the relations between an international organisation and a staff member must be governed by good faith, respect, transparency and consideration for their dignity (see Judgment 1479, under 12). Accordingly, an organisation is required to treat its staff with due consideration and to avoid causing them undue injury. An organisation must care for the dignity of its staff members and not cause them unnecessary personal distress and disappointment where this could be avoided. In particular, good faith requires an organisation to inform a staff member in advance of any action that it might take which may impair a staff member’s rights or rightful interest."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1479
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3236
115th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the decision to subject him to an investigation was tainted with misuse of power.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Concerning the initiation of the investigation itself, the Tribunal’s case law is clear that a decision to begin an investigation into misconduct at that stage is not a decision that affects the staff member’s status (see Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364
Keywords:
decision; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3216
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party (see Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2700, under 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Board, which ultimately relied upon it, was obliged to advise the complainant of the receipt of new evidence and give her an opportunity to respond before taking it into consideration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2700
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to be heard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3204
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims moral damages for the Union’s failure to submit to its Council the matter of the recognition of same-sex marriages.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is settled by the Tribunal’s case law that, according to the rules of good faith, anyone who was a staff member of an organisation and to whom a promise was made, may expect that promise to be kept by the organisation. However, the right to fulfilment of the promise is conditional. One condition is that the promise should be substantive. Another is that the promise is from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it. Yet another is that the breach should cause injury to the person who relies on the promise (see Judgment 782)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 782
Keywords:
condition; definition; duty of care; formal requirements; good faith; organisation's duties; promise; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3200
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Although the case was complex and detailed, and the subject matter sensitive, the time taken to complete the proceedings was indeed excessive. The Tribunal notes in particular that it took OSDI ten months to bring the investigation to a conclusion following the interviews, and it took the Director General seven months to reject the appeal after receiving the Appeals Committee Report. The total length of the proceedings cannot therefore be considered reasonable, and specifically, the two intervals of time noted above were excessive. The conclusion is that the Organization did not respect the need for expeditious proceedings and violated its duty of care towards the complainant."
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3191
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Regarding the contents of the vacancy notice, the confusion, to the extent there was some confusion among potential applicants, involved confusion about the interpretation of the Service Regulations and not the interpretation of the content of the vacancy notice itself. However, in these circumstances, where the EPO was aware of the confusion surrounding the interpretation of its Regulations, it was incumbent on the Administration to clarify the requirements for the position in the vacancy notice."
Keywords:
formal requirements; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 25
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly observed, internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see for example Judgment 2522, under 7). While the time an appeal might reasonably take will often depend on the particular circumstances of a given case, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902, under 16, that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"As to the compensation for the delay, it is well established that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). Furthermore, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902 that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”. The time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the particular circumstances. The Director-General recognised that the time taken in this case, a little over two years, was excessive and awarded moral damages. As noted earlier, both the complainant and UNIDO dispute the quantum of damages awarded by the Director-General for delay.
The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
compensation; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3115
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 3099
112th Session, 2012
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Although staff members of international organisations necessarily have the right to protect their own interests, they must act in conformity with their duty as international civil servants."
Keywords:
international civil service principles; official; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"There is no reason in principle why the actions of a subordinate cannot constitute harassment of his or her supervisor, particularly where those actions consist of persistent unfounded allegations of harassment. However, just as the actions of a supervisor that serve a legitimate managerial or supervisory function do not constitute harassment, so, too, actions taken in good faith by a subordinate that serve the function of protecting his or her legitimate interests do not constitute harassment."
Keywords:
good faith; harassment; staff member's interest; supervisor;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]s a general rule, an organisation should refrain from passing on damaging information about a staff member. If the recipient of that information has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth [...] it should refrain from passing on damaging information without first giving the staff member an opportunity to challenge it and give his or her own account."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty of care; duty of discretion; injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; rebuttal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of appointment following reorganisation / Failure on the part of the Organization to take a final decision on the complainant's appeal / Excessive delay in communicating to the complainant the outcome of the internal appeal procedure.
"The decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual's rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment."
Keywords:
abolition of post; complainant; decision; duty of care; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; right; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2992
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The CDE requests that certain documents be removed from the file on the grounds that they are confidential and that the complainant obtained them unlawfully.
"The Tribunal will not accede to the request for the removal of items of evidence, since the Centre has not proved that this request is justified by the protection of interests more worthy of protection that the complainant's interest in defending herself (see Judgment 2700, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700
Keywords:
claim; confidential evidence; discontinuance; flaw; lack of evidence; organisation; organisation's interest; refusal; staff member's interest;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
