Injury (46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Injury
Total judgments found: 198
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 5178
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the installation of speed lanes and video cameras pending a proper consultation process.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that a complainant must have a cause of action in order for a complaint to be receivable (see, for example, Judgment 4881, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). Moreover, for there to be a cause of action rendering a complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgments 5036, consideration 4, and 3168, consideration 9).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 4881, 5036
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Judgment 5176
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 9
Extract:
“The Tribunal recalls that, with regard to damages, complainants bear the burden of proof and must provide evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act adversely affecting them, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 19, 4158, consideration 7, 4157, consideration 9, and 4156, considerations 5 and 6). In the present case, the complainant’s claim for moral injury is unsupported by any argument or evidence.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156, 4157, 4158, 4637
Keywords:
injury; moral injury;
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[À] défaut de disposition expresse en sens contraire, le non respect d’un délai de procédure n’implique donc pas, en soi, l’illégalité de la décision contestée (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4947, au considérant 17, 4666, au considérant 11, 4664, au considérant 9, et 4584, au considérant 4), mais est tout au plus susceptible de donner lieu à la réparation du préjudice subi par le fonctionnaire concerné, et ce, pour autant que ce dernier puisse établir la réalité d’un tel préjudice (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4727, au considérant 14, 4635, au considérant 8, 4178, au considérant 15, 4100, au considérant 7, ou 3160, au considérant 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4100, 4178, 4584, 4635, 4664, 4666, 4727, 4947
Keywords:
injury; time limit;
Judgment 5046
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As explained in, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9, for there to be a cause of action rendering the complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The injury need not be immediate and liability to cause injury is sufficient (see, for example, Judgment 3740, consideration 11) […] Moreover, a communication clarifying the basis of an entitlement can embody a decision as to entitlements (see Judgment 3861, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3740, 3861
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Judgment 5040
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As explained in, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9, for there to be a cause of action rendering the complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The injury need not be immediate and liability to cause injury is sufficient (see, for example, Judgment 3740, consideration 11) […] Moreover, a communication clarifying the basis of an entitlement can embody a decision as to entitlements (see Judgment 3861, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3740, 3861
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[The] concept of 'liable to cause injury' involves a measure of likelihood about the occurrence of the injury and certainly not a remote possibility.
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Judgment 5036
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The first question is whether this email, and these statements [...], constitute an administrative decision for the purposes of partly determining whether this complaint is receivable. As explained in, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9, for there to be a cause of action rendering the complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The injury need not be immediate and liability to cause injury is sufficient (see, for example, Judgment 3740, consideration 11). This aspect of the principle applies in this case. Moreover, a communication clarifying the basis of an entitlement can embody a decision as to entitlements (see Judgment 3861, consideration 5). In the present case the position taken by the IAEA was quite specific. The complainant, as viewed by the IAEA as a permanent resident (based on what the Austrian authorities considered constituted permanent residence status), would receive no repatriation allowance nor home leave. This, in the Tribunal’s opinion, gives rise to a cause of action and the complaint is thus receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3740, 3861
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5017
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante considère avoir été privée de ses fonctions par suite d’une restructuration et demande réparation du préjudice qu’elle estime avoir subi en raison de ce qu’elle estime être une résiliation de facto de son engagement.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[L]a requérante met en doute, en premier lieu, le respect du délai […] dans lequel le Secrétaire général doit saisir la Commission mixte de recours. Mais, outre que l’intéressée ne soutient même pas formellement dans ses écritures que ce délai aurait été méconnu, le Tribunal relève que ce grief ne saurait, en tout état de cause, constituer une erreur substantielle de nature à vicier la régularité de la procédure suivie. En effet, des délais de cette nature ne sont pas prescrits à peine de nullité de la décision rendue après leur expiration et leur éventuelle méconnaissance n’entache pas celle-ci d’illégalité mais peut seulement ouvrir droit à réparation au profit du fonctionnaire concerné lorsqu’elle présente un caractère fautif et qu’il en est résulté un préjudice concret pour celui-ci, qu’il lui appartient d’établir (voir les jugements 4584, au considérant 4, 4408, aux considérants 5 et 6, ou 2885, au considérant 14).
[L]e délai dans lequel intervient l’avis d’un tel organe est, en soi, sans incidence sur la légalité de la décision prise au vu de celui-ci (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4662, au considérant 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2885, 4408, 4584, 4662
Keywords:
decision quashed; injury; internal appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4949
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 32
Extract:
La sanction de renvoi sans préavis infligée au requérant a par ailleurs causé à celui-ci un évident préjudice moral, en ce qu’elle portait, par elle-même, une grave atteinte à son honneur et à sa réputation. En revanche, si le requérant soutient que ce préjudice aurait en outre été aggravé par d’autres circonstances, il ne l’établit pas de manière pertinente aux yeux du Tribunal. En outre, le requérant n’établit pas non plus que la procédure de recours interne ait été en l’espèce d’une durée déraisonnable ou excessive.
Dans ces conditions, le Tribunal estime qu’il sera fait une juste réparation du tort moral subi par le requérant en lui attribuant une somme de 30 000 euros.
Keywords:
injury; moral injury; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4947
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to reject his requests for the suspension of action on the decision to suspend him with pay and with immediate effect, and on the decisions to extend that measure, pending the outcome of the internal appeal procedures.
Consideration 13
Extract:
S’agissant de la décision en cause dans le cadre de sa cinquième requête, le requérant soutient finalement que la Commission de recours et l’organisation auraient commis une erreur de qualification juridique des faits en concluant à l’absence de préjudice irréparable dans le contexte de sa situation. Le requérant se réfère, à ce sujet, à l’ «impact irrémédiable» que la deuxième prolongation de la mesure de suspension qui lui a été infligée aurait eu en ce qui concerne son préjudice psychologique et l’atteinte considérable à sa dignité personnelle et professionnelle. Il insiste sur le fait que le préjudice pour sa carrière et sa réputation serait irréparable en raison de la nature de ses fonctions.
Mais, dans le jugement 3860, au considérant 8, le Tribunal a indiqué ce qui suit au sujet de cette autre exigence du paragraphe c) de la règle 111.4:
«8. [...] selon l’interprétation correcte de la règle 111.4 c), une des conditions devant être remplies pour qu’une demande de suspension soit accueillie est que le fonctionnaire subirait un préjudice irréparable si la décision contestée était exécutée. La commission de recours et le Greffier se sont longuement penchés sur le sens qu’il convient de donner au terme “irréparable” et leurs avis sur la question différaient à plusieurs égards. Il n’est pas nécessaire de répéter ici leurs arguments ni de réexaminer leurs analyses respectives. La question a été traitée par le Tribunal dans le jugement 1883, au considérant 5. Un préjudice ou tort “irréparable” s’entend d’un préjudice ou tort qui ne saurait “être réparé par une compensation financière”. Le tort ou préjudice invoqué par le requérant, à savoir une atteinte à sa carrière et à sa réputation ainsi que l’impossibilité de continuer à travailler pour la CPI, peut être réparé par une compensation financière. [...]»
La Commission de recours et l’organisation ont simplement suivi les enseignements de cette jurisprudence dans leur évaluation du préjudice subi par le requérant avant de conclure que son caractère irréparable n’était pas établi. Le Tribunal ajoute que, s’il s’agissait dans les faits d’un préjudice effectivement irréparable, il serait alors difficile de concilier cette assertion avec le constat que le requérant a attendu 67 jours après la décision initiale de suspension du 11 octobre 2021 avant de demander pour la première fois la suspension de l’exécution de la décision concernée.
Le Tribunal considère que l’erreur de qualification juridique des faits alléguée par le requérant n’est pas établie. En effet, dans les circonstances de l’espèce, le préjudice moral ou psychologique dont l’intéressé revendique l’existence, y compris dans son aspect d’atteinte à sa carrière et à sa réputation, était bien un préjudice qui, le cas échéant, pouvait être réparé par une compensation financière.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1883, 3860
Keywords:
compensation; injury;
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 7
Extract:
The flaw in the decision making discussed in consideration 5 would warrant the setting aside of the impugned decision. 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.
Keywords:
flaw; injury;
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.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The flaw in the decision making discussed in consideration 5 would warrant the setting aside of the impugned decision. 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.
Keywords:
flaw; injury;
Judgment 4926
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of UNESCO, complains of the refusal of the Internal Oversight Service, and then of the Director General, to open an investigation into what he describes as the “disappearance of a highly important official letter”.
Consideration 4
Extract:
L’ouverture d’une enquête administrative sur des faits dénoncés par un fonctionnaire n’a, à l’évidence, de raison d’être que si ces faits sont de nature à causer à celui-ci un préjudice identifiable.
Keywords:
injury; inquiry; lack of injury;
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 34
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims material damages in an amount equal to two years’ salary, benefits, step increases, pension contributions, and all other entitlements and emoluments that she would have received had she not been wrongfully separated from service. This claim is not substantiated in the complainant’s proceedings be it in terms of years sought or of her expectations within the Organization. Given that any fixed-term contract the complainant ever held with IOM never exceeded one year and that the total length of her services with the Organization lasted approximately five years, the Tribunal considers that this claim is not justified and overstated in the circumstances.
An award of material damages in an amount equivalent to nine months’ salary, including benefits, entitlements and emoluments, represents a fair and reasonable compensation in the present case. IOM will be ordered to pay this amount to the complainant, plus interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2019, less any amounts she may have earned from other employment during that period of nine months beginning on 1 November 2019.
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; material damages; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 35
Extract:
The complainant also claims moral damages in an amount equal to no less than one year of her former gross salary and benefits. But the Tribunal’s case law states that in respect of damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and that she must provide evidence of the alleged injury (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). It suffices to note that in the present situation, notwithstanding this precedent, the complainant did not provide any specification of the moral injury she allegedly suffered nor evidence supporting its existence. This claim must consequently be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; moral damages; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the IAEA, pursuant to its duty of care, ought to have treated the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter as the initiation of a compensation claim for a work-related injury. Therefore, it follows that the complainant’s claim was timely submitted under Appendix D and should be considered by the JABCC.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In light of the foregoing, the complainant’s claim for compensation will be remitted to the IAEA for the JABCC to consider whether the complainant’s injury is attributable to the performance of official duties and whether he is entitled to the payment of medical expenses and compensation resulting from such injury pursuant to Appendix D.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; claim; compensation; illness; injury; remand; service-incurred;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he approach taken by the Director General in the impugned decision is problematic.
First, he erred in treating the complainant’s letter of 5 December 2019 as a letter merely “addressing return-to-work issues”. On the contrary, it is clear that in his 5 December 2019 letter the complainant intended to report his work-related accident to the IAEA and he did so about two months after the reported accident. This was within the four-month applicable time limit. In that letter, the complainant wrote: “Please accept this letter as written notice that on 4th of October 2019 I was involved in a work accident in my office”. The complainant also described the circumstances of his accident and the details of his treatment, and indicated that he might need further sick leave in the coming weeks. The letter was accompanied by a medical report of his status, diagnosis, and treatment. Interpreting a letter primarily focused on reporting a work-related accident, including by describing the circumstances thereof and attaching a medical report, solely as a sick leave request or a letter addressing return-to-work issues, overlooked its potential relevance to a compensation claim.
Second, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgment 4369, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In addition, if a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see Judgment 4006, consideration 13). Accordingly, an international organisation is under an obligation to clearly communicate to its staff members the appropriate procedures for submitting claims for compensation for service-incurred injuries or illnesses. This obligation is particularly important where procedural rules are unclear and could result in significant adverse consequences for staff members who are genuinely misguided on the procedures they must follow. As previously noted, Appendix D does not explicitly detail the procedural formalities for submitting a compensation claim for service-incurred injury or illness, such as its format or intended recipient. Therefore, the IAEA had a duty to provide procedural guidance to the complainant who was mistaken in the exercise of his right. Rather than penalizing him for procedural non-compliance, which at least in part stemmed from the lack of clarity in its own rules, the IAEA should have guided the complainant to follow the appropriate procedures.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the VIC Medical Service should have forwarded the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent body within the organisation. The necessity of forwarding to the competent body within the organization appeals addressed to the wrong body is articulated in Judgment 3034, consideration 15, as follows:
“[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).” (See also Judgment 4140, consideration 6.)
This case law equally applies to the present case concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred injury addressed to the wrong body. The duty to re-direct an incorrectly filed claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness to the competent body within the organization is an integral part of the duty of care incumbent upon organisations. It is intended to ensure that staff members are not deprived of their right to compensation for service-incurred injury or illness because of procedural missteps which can easily be remedied by re-directing compensation claims to the competent authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3034, 4006, 4369
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complaint allowed; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant contends that the impugned decision considered her misconduct as already proved and limited the scope of the new investigation. In addition, she contends that, even though the disciplinary measures, issued by the memorandum of 8 May 2018, no longer have a legal basis and have been suspended, she has not been reimbursed in full for the deductions from her salary applied from the date of the disciplinary decision until the date of the decision to suspend the disciplinary measures. The Tribunal finds that the impugned decision is potentially apt to immediately and adversely affect the complainant with regard to the alleged non-reimbursement of the salary deductions during the aforementioned period and the alleged improper limitation of the scope of the new investigation. In conclusion, the complaint is receivable and must be assessed on the merits. The Tribunal’s case law holds that the necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the complainant’s position (see Judgment 3337, consideration 7). This condition is met in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3337
Keywords:
cause of action; deduction; disciplinary measure; injury;
Judgment 4803
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests amendments made to the procedure for adjusting remuneration as reflected in his payslips.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[H]aving regard to the Appeals Committee’s findings, it is not inevitable, certain or even likely there will be future injury to the complainant. It remains the position generally that an abstract change of methodology of salary calculation or the calculation of other emoluments is challengeable when it is implemented or, exceptionally, when future injury is certain or likely. Thus, in Judgment 4075, recently reiterated in Judgments 4381, consideration 11, and 4380, consideration 8, for instance, the Tribunal concluded that the complaint was irreceivable as beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4380, 4381
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injury; salary;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 14
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for moral damages for the injury he suffered as a consequence of the alleged harassment and for the Global Fund’s refusal to take adequate action to follow up on his harassment complaint, the Tribunal notes two things. First, no award of moral damages can be made in the absence of a conclusive finding as to whether the alleged harassment actually took place or not. Second, the Global Fund actually did take action, and did so soon after the harassment complaint was submitted, by removing the complainant from the Chief Risk Officer’s supervision and by assigning him to a position under a different reporting line.
Keywords:
harassment; injury; moral damages;
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.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for interest for late payment on the sums that were repaid to her. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decision had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions, and the corresponding interest, conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and implied that interest for late payment could be considered only if URSSAF or the French authorities paid such interest. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; 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.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainants’ claims for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letters of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainants for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
