Reinstatement (315,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reinstatement
Total judgments found: 187
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 35
Extract:
“Ordinarily, an official holding a continuous appointment dismissed on disciplinary grounds whose dismissal is set aside is entitled to be reinstated (see Judgment 4579, consideration 7). However there is a line of precedents which do not order reinstatement in light of the specific circumstances of each case, taking specific account of the loss of confidence and the effluxion of time (see, for example, Judgments 4943, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein; see also Judgments 4936, consideration 8, 4924, consideration 12, 4674, consideration 23, 4660, consideration 20, 4540, consideration 13, 4457, consideration 24, 4456, consideration 18, 4063, consideration 11, 2034, consideration 11, and 1238, consideration 4). In the present case, the Tribunal considers that ordering reinstatement is inappropriate.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1238, 2034, 4063, 4456, 4457, 4540, 4579, 4660, 4674, 4924, 4936, 4943
Keywords:
reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 5144
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
“Regarding the complainant’s claim for reinstatement, under the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the reinstatement of a staff member who held a fixed-term contract is ordered only in exceptional cases (see, for example, Judgments 4405, consideration 8, 4063, consideration 11, 3353, consideration 35, and 1317, consideration 38).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 3353, 4063, 4405
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;
Judgment 5139
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reappoint rather than reinstate him when he was re-employed by Interpol following a break of several months.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reinstatement;
Judgment 5117
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: ITU seeks the Tribunal’s clarification on the issue of material damages payable in accordance with consideration 53 of Judgment 4832.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
“In Judgment 4092, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following:
“As the Tribunal has stated on many occasions in its case law, when a reinstatement order is applied retroactively to the date when the official’s employment was unlawfully terminated, this implies that the official is considered as having remained in service after that date under the same conditions as before and is therefore entitled to the salary and other financial benefits that he would have received if this had actually been the case (see, for example, Judgments 1384, consideration 18(a), 1447, consideration 17, 2261, consideration 16, 2468, consideration 19, and 3723, consideration 8). The reinstatement ‘with all legal consequences that this entails’ referred to in [order] 2 of the decision in Judgment 3871 can therefore only be construed as having such effects.”
[…] In the context of the words used by the Tribunal in […] Judgment 4832, the obligation to restore the status quo ante is limited to the payment of benefits and entitlements that the official receives from ITU and it does not include privileges and immunities bestowed by national authorities under headquarters or host agreements for the benefit of the organization and the independence of its officials.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4092, 4832
Keywords:
application for interpretation; host state; reinstatement;
Judgment 5113
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“[T]he reinstatement of an official on a fixed-term contract is ordered only in exceptional cases […]. In the present case, having also regard to the time that has elapsed since the complainant’s separation from the organisation, the Tribunal considers that reinstatement would not be appropriate. However, as a result of the unlawful decision not to renew his appointment, the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to pursue his employment with the organisation, in respect of which he is entitled to an award of material damages. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal assesses those damages in the amount of 60,000 euros. The complainant is also entitled to moral damages for the breach of the organisation’s duty of care, which the Tribunal assesses at 15,000 euros.”
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; loss of opportunity; material damages; moral damages; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
“[T]he complainant requests reinstatement or, alternatively, material damages […]. The Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent case law, a temporary appointment carries no expectation of renewal […]. Even if the reasons for non-renewal had not been flawed, there would have been no guarantee that the complainant’s contract would have been renewed. His request for reinstatement is therefore rejected. However, because the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to have his contract renewed due to the defects established above, he is entitled to material damages to compensate for that loss of opportunity, which the Tribunal assesses at a lump sum of 30,000 euros.”
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; loss of opportunity; material damages; moral damages; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;
Judgment 5056
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste, d’une part, la décision de rejet de ses demandes de réintégration à son poste au Siège de l’Organisation, ainsi que de suspension de la procédure de recrutement à ce poste, et, d’autre part, le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; institutional harassment; reinstatement;
Judgment 5055
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de renvoi sans préavis dont il a fait l’objet.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[L]a réintégration d’un fonctionnaire titulaire d’un contrat de durée déterminée n’est prononcée que dans des cas exceptionnels (voir notamment les jugements 4924, au considérant 12, 4674, au considérant 23, et 4063, au considérant 11). Or la présente affaire ne relève pas d’un tel cas exceptionnel.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4674, 4924
Keywords:
fixed-term; reinstatement;
Judgment 5020
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de résilier son engagement par suite de la suppression de son poste.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[C]ompte tenu notamment de la longue période de temps écoulée depuis la résiliation de l’engagement de la requérante et du constat d’acrimonie sérieuse et de tension entre les parties que révèlent en particulier les écritures échangées dans le cadre des multiples recours internes qui ont mené aux huit requêtes formées devant le Tribunal, qui ne sont pas de nature à permettre la continuation d’une relation de travail saine et qui témoignent d’une rupture du lien de confiance, le Tribunal estime inopportun d’ordonner la réintégration de l’intéressée au sein de l’Organisation (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4840, au considérant 33, 4659, au considérant 8, et 4622, au considérant 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4622, 4659, 4840
Keywords:
reinstatement;
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.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the Appeals Committee concluded that the complainant had been negligent. A significant element in the complainant’s pleas is a defence of the conclusions of the Committee and, in those pleas, the complainant speaks of the contributory negligence of others. Though the complainant does not do so explicitly, clearly implicit in the approach he adopts in his pleas, is an acknowledgment that he was negligent. And while he seeks reinstatement, he allows for the possibility in the orders he seeks that reinstatement might not be feasible. The Tribunal has repeatedly said that it may refuse to make such an order if reinstatement is no longer possible or if it is inappropriate. According to the Tribunal’s case law, reinstatement is inadvisable when an employer has valid reasons for losing confidence in an employee (see, in particular, Judgments 4579, consideration 7, 4310, consideration 13, and 3364, consideration 27). There is little room to doubt this is so in relation to the complainant. In these circumstances the complainant is entitled to damages for the lost opportunity of continuing in employment with the FAO though with the caveat that he may ultimately have been found to have participated in fraud as had been determined by the OIGI. Those damages are assessed in the sum of 20,000 United States dollars.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3364, 4310, 4579
Keywords:
fraud; loss of opportunity; material damages; reinstatement;
Judgment 4936
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Considerations 8 and 10
Extract:
The flaw in the decision making discussed in the preceding four considerations would warrant the setting aside of the impugned decision and the decision of the Deputy Director General of 5 October 2020. However, it is necessary to determine whether this relief is appropriate in all the circumstances. Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that if a complaint is well-founded then the impugned decision can be rescinded though, if this is not possible or advisable, compensation can be awarded for the injury caused to her or him. There is little room to doubt that the relationship between the complainant and IOM has broken down and it would not be advisable to set aside the decisions dismissing the complainant and ordering his reinstatement, as sought by him in his brief (see, for example, Judgments 4674, consideration 23, 4456, consideration 18, 4310, consideration 13, and 3364, consideration 27).
[…]
The question which now arises is what compensation should be awarded to the complainant for the injury occasioned by his unlawful dismissal. He has lost the opportunity for continued future employment with IOM and the Tribunal is satisfied he suffered moral injury as a result of his dismissal which should sound in moral damages. However, the amount of compensation must reflect the fact that it is highly likely that the complainant would have been dismissed lawfully had IOM been alive to the problems occasioned by relying on Instruction IN/90.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3364, 4310, 4456, 4674
Keywords:
discharge with notice; moral damages; reinstatement;
Judgment 4930
139th Session, 2025
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In conclusion, not only did the Secretary-General fail to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the Appeal Board’s opinion, he also committed an error of law concerning the time granted to the complainant for improving his performance having regard to the date in which the workplan was established. Accordingly, the impugned decision, as well as the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment at the end of the probationary period, are unlawful and they will be set aside. Concerning the complainant’s claims for reinstatement or, in the alternative, the award of material damages, the Tribunal holds that reinstatement is not appropriate in light of the fact that he had been appointed for a two-year fixed-term contract as from 6 January 2020 and in light of the effluxion of time. The complainant lost a valuable opportunity to successfully conclude his probationary period and to remain in service until the expiry of his two-year fixed-term contract. As a result, he is entitled to an award of material damages which the Tribunal will assess taking into account the possibility that his employment might have been lawfully terminated at the end of his probationary period. The Tribunal finds it fair and just to award material damages in the sum of 50,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
material damages; reinstatement;
Judgment 4924
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal considère, en tout état de cause, qu’il n’y a pas lieu de procéder à cette réintégration eu égard, non seulement à l’écoulement du temps ainsi constaté depuis les faits, mais aussi à la circonstance que l’intéressé était employé dans le cadre d’un engagement de durée définie. Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, la réintégration d’un fonctionnaire titulaire d’un contrat de durée déterminée n’est en effet prononcée que dans des cas exceptionnels (voir notamment les jugements 4674, au considérant 23, et 4063, au considérant 11). Or, la présente affaire ne relève pas d’un tel cas exceptionnel.
Au surplus, il résulte également de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que la réintégration d’un fonctionnaire doit être regardée comme inopportune lorsque l’organisation qui l’employait a, pour des raisons valables, perdu confiance en lui (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4660, au considérant 20, 4310, au considérant 13, ou 3364, au considérant 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3364, 4063, 4310, 4660, 4674
Keywords:
reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 33
Extract:
The complainant seeks reinstatement in the Organization. The Tribunal considers that, in view of the time that has passed since the events giving rise to this case and the fact that the complainant held a fixed-term appointment, it is not appropriate, in the circumstances, to order her reinstatement. In Judgment 4674, consideration 23, the Tribunal recalled that it was only in exceptional cases that reinstatement might be ordered in a context where the complainant was on a fixed-term contract that has expired (see also, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11). The present case is not exceptional.
In addition, the Tribunal cannot ignore that, despite its conclusion that in view of the above-mentioned irregularities and findings the impugned decision of 9 November 2020 and the prior decision of 6 October 2019 must be annulled, the very acrimonious and sometimes never-ending exchanges between the parties establish that the reinstatement of the complainant is no longer possible, nor appropriate or in the interest of either one of the parties. Any reasonable likelihood of the parties being able to establish a satisfactory working relationship with the necessary trust and confidence, despite the conflictual situation that transpired from these numerous exchanges, is simply non-existent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4674
Keywords:
fixed-term; reinstatement;
Judgment 4784
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4051.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4051
Keywords:
annual leave; application for execution; complaint allowed; home leave; reinstatement;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]nasmuch as it was further to the EPO’s unlawful decision to dismiss the complainant that he was unable to take annual leave between 23 June 2016 and his reinstatement at the end of July 2018 (pursuant to the order in Judgment 4051), he is entitled to be credited with the accrued annual leave for the subject period. For the same reason, he is also entitled to be credited with accrued home leave for the same period.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4051
Keywords:
annual leave; home leave; reinstatement;
Judgment 4674
136th Session, 2023
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 23
Extract:
It would not be appropriate to order reinstatement. Almost self-evidently, the necessary trust and confidence between the complainant and PAHO could not be recreated or created to sustain future employment of the complainant with the Organization (see, for example, Judgments 4456, consideration 18, 4310, consideration 13, and 3364, consideration 27). Moreover, the complainant was on a fixed-term contract (which appears to have expired in the meantime), and it is only in exceptional cases that reinstatement might be ordered in that context (see, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11). This case is not exceptional.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3364, 4063, 4310, 4456
Keywords:
reinstatement;
Judgment 4672
136th Session, 2023
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the title of his post following his reinstatement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; reinstatement; title of post;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that, in view of the time that has passed since the events giving rise to the case and the fact that the complainant held a fixed-term appointment, and taking into account the fact that the complainant’s misconduct led to a loss of confidence in him by Interpol – as robustly asserted by the Organization in its submissions – which, given the nature of that misconduct, is based on reasons that can only be regarded as legitimate, it is not appropriate, in the circumstances of the case, to order the complainant’s reinstatement in the Organization (see in particular, with regard to the use of these various criteria in assessing the appropriacy of reinstatement in the event that a dismissal on disciplinary grounds is set aside, Judgments 4457, consideration 24, 4310, consideration 13, 4063, consideration 11, and 3364, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3364, 4063, 4310, 4457
Keywords:
reinstatement;
Judgment 4659
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Ordinarily, an official dismissed for disciplinary reasons whose dismissal is set aside is entitled to reinstatement if she or he holds an indeterminate appointment, which the complainant did. However, the Tribunal may decide not to make such an order if reinstatement is no longer possible or if it is inappropriate. According to the Tribunal’s case law, reinstatement may be inappropriate if the official concerned would not be able to establish a satisfactory working relationship with her or his colleagues and supervisors (see Judgments 4622, consideration 15, and 4540, consideration 13).
So it is in this case. The evidence on the file shows that the complainant had a conflictual relationship with many of his colleagues, as well as with his supervisors. His reinstatement in the Organization would therefore raise obvious difficulties and will not be ordered.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4540, 4622
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; reinstatement;
Judgment 4622
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal will not order the complainant’s reinstatement at the ILO.
Reinstatement appears inappropriate as the evidence shows that, given the nature and extent of the complainant’s functional impairments, there is a significant risk that, even if the ILO were able to identify a position that could be adapted, the Organization would not find the conditions under which the position would be held satisfactory and that the complainant would therefore inevitably be placed in a situation that in reality would not be particularly rewarding and in any event would not allow her to achieve her full potential in her work. From that perspective, the Tribunal considers that, ultimately, in the complainant’s own interests and in view of the many years of employment she could still have ahead, it is objectively preferable that she endeavour to redirect her career towards an occupation that is more naturally compatible with the impairments in question than the administrative roles likely to be offered to her in the Organization.
Moreover, an examination of the file reveals the existence of tension between the complainant and the Organization, borne out by the heated tone of the written submissions exchanged by the parties in the present proceedings, which would undoubtedly make it difficult in practice for the complainant to return to the Office. In that regard, the Tribunal notes that, in its 2014 report, the Invalidity Committee had already observed that the complainant’s reinstatement, while it should certainly “be attempted in the first instance”, would nonetheless be “hard” for her emotionally. As it is, the conflictual nature of her relationship with the Office appears to have only been confirmed, if not exacerbated, since then.
Keywords:
reinstatement;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
