Compensation (585,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Compensation
Total judgments found: 154

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

• Judgment 5189

  
  141st Session, 2026
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his transposition into a new job group, together with the refusal to grant him a salary increase to which he believed he was entitled, pursuant to the introduction of a new career regime applicable to chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "Il appartiendra à l’Organisation d’établir, sur cette base, de nouvelles fiches de salaire mensuelles, pour la période en cause qui se substitueront à celles initialement délivrées."

  Keywords:

  compensation; competence of tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5183

  
  141st Session, 2026
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for the consequences of her occupational disease.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  compensation; complaint dismissed; occupational illness; res judicata;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5121

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her claim for additional compensation in connection with the passing of her husband.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  compensation; complaint dismissed; death;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5104

  
  141st Session, 2026
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject as time-barred her compensation claim for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [I]n his decision of 9 March 2022, the Director-General accepted the unanimous recommendation made by the JAAB in its report […] and, therefore, the views of the JAAB should have been considered by the Compensation Committee in its new consideration of the complainant’s compensation claim, but they were not. The JAAB’s detailed reasoning on what was the starting point for calculating the six-month time limit for the submission of her compensation claim spanned a little over three pages of factual and legal analysis. It culminated with a conclusion that a diagnosis made […] in December 2019 could serve as a starting point for the timeframe for the complainant filing a compensation claim. Given the history of the matter, it was clearly incumbent on the majority of the members of the Compensation Committee to explain why they did not accept, and, in fact, rejected, the JAAB’s analysis or, at least, why it was open to them to draw the unfavourable inference they did, in the face of the JAAB’s analysis.

  Keywords:

  advisory body; claim; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; illness; internal appeals body; recommendation; service-incurred; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5096

  
  141st Session, 2026
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks a retroactive redefinition of his employment relationship.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  International civil servants are entitled to expect timely consideration of their cases by internal appeal bodies. Failure to ensure expeditious proceedings constitutes a failing on the part of the employer organisation (see Judgments 3510, consideration 24, and 2116, consideration 11). The Tribunal’s case law dictates that the amount of compensation that may be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, and 3160, consideration 17). In the present case, approximately three years and three months elapsed between the delivery on 24 January 2018 of the aforementioned Judgment 3943, whereby the complainant’s case was remitted to WIPO for the complainant’s appeal for reconsideration by the WAB, after correction, and the notification of the 12 April 2021 decision on the complainant’s appeal. The Organization’s liability is assessed solely against this period, as Judgment 3943 found no reason to compensate for delay caused by the setting aside of the initial decision due to the appeal’s flaw. While this delay is undeniably long, it is important to consider that, to a small extent, the slowness can be attributed to the stay of proceedings duly granted pending Judgments 4160 and 4159.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 3943, 4100, 4159, 4160, 4178, 4635
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; delay in internal procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5083

  
  140th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of the partial compensation for the national taxation of his pension.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  compensation; complaint dismissed; tax;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5075

  
  140th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of a quality monitoring system as well as the adoption of the Practice and Procedure Notice 09/11 and contest the validity of the internal appeals proceedings.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  compensation; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; consultation; iloat statute; staff union;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  Cases arise in the Tribunal where the defendant organisation has failed to consult a person or a body, which should have been consulted under the relevant rules, and the Tribunal may make orders which require that consultation take place and the Tribunal may also set aside the decision made without consultation […]. However, setting aside the decision is not an inevitable outcome following a conclusion that consultation should have taken place, but did not. As explained by the Tribunal in Judgment 3883, considerations 22 and 23: “[…] [U]ltimately what relief can be granted by the Tribunal is governed by Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute […]. That provision clearly contemplates that if a complainant establishes that a decision was unlawfully made, the decision can berescinded. Equally, however, it contemplates that if the rescission of a decision is not ‘advisable’, then the Tribunal ‘shall award the complainant compensation for the injury caused to her or him’.[…]." In the present case, the failure to consult the GAC occurred over a decade ago. Indeed, the GAC was abolished in 2014, and, thus, it cannot now be consulted. It is not apparent to the Tribunal that the continued implementation of PPN 09/11 would cause any real prejudice or injury to the complainants or the the staff of the Office more generally. In these circumstances, it is clearly not advisable to rescind the decision adopting and promulgating PPN 9/11 notwithstanding the failure to consult the GAC […].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3883
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; competence of tribunal; consultation; iloat statute;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5054

  
  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 le réaffecter dans un bureau hors Siège de l’Organisation.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [L]e Tribunal relève que le requérant reste en défaut d’expliciter dans sa requête l’existence du préjudice moral qu’il prétend avoir subi du seul fait de la décision de le réaffecter au Bureau de Kingston. Dans les circonstances très particulières de l’espèce, où la réaffectation en question n’a jamais connu de matérialisation effective et où, de surcroît, le requérant a fait preuve d’un comportement manifestement peu coopératif à l’égard de l’Organisation, le Tribunal considère que la simple constatation de l’illégalité de la décision attaquée suffit à réparer l’éventuel préjudice moral qu’aurait subi l’intéressé du fait de cette décision.
  Il n’y a donc pas lieu de lui accorder de dommages-intérêts à ce titre.

  Keywords:

  compensation; decision quashed; moral injury; transfer;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4959

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his leave entitlement for public holidays in 2021 and of the deductions made in this respect because he worked part-time.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  compensation; complaint allowed; leave;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4955

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject, on grounds of irreceivability, his compensation claims for what he considers to be a service-incurred illness.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4830, consideration 6, 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742, 4830
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• 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 4922

  
  139th Session, 2025
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his complaint of moral harassment at the end of the preliminary assessment procedure.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  [L]e Tribunal considère que les circonstances ainsi invoquées ne sont pas de nature, en droit, à priver la requête de son objet, dès lors que le requérant n’en conserve pas moins un intérêt à contester le classement de sa propre plainte pour harcèlement et à bénéficier notamment d’une éventuelle indemnisation des préjudices qu’il estime avoir subis dans le cadre de la présente affaire (voir par exemple, pour un cas de figure comparable, le jugement 3995, au considérant 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3995
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; compensation; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4830

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal notes that, in his letter of 12 December 2018 addressed to the Secretary-General, the complainant based his claims on administrative decisions that he did not challenge within the period prescribed by [...] Staff Rule 11.1.2. It is clear from the evidence that the complainant did not submit a request for reconsideration in respect of his job description or his transfer when he was transferred on 1 January 2014 [...]. Neither did he submit a request for reconsideration in respect of the payslips which he subsequently received every month.
  The Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that his request of 12 December 2018 was not time-barred because its purpose was to obtain compensation for the whole of the injury he allegedly suffered for the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 March 2020, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to any particular time limit.
  The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. Endorsing the complainant’s argument would have the effect of authorising an organisation’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for the injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgments 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15).
  It follows that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent that it concerns the implied decision dismissing his request of 12 December 2018 for his administrative situation to be regularised, because he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• 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 4816

  
  138th Session, 2024
  South Centre
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of the compensation for the short notice, due by the South Centre, after the non-renewal of his short-term appointment as well as the calculation of his last salary.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; case sent back to organisation; compensation; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4808

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of the investigation procedure conducted in respect of her harassment grievance and the resulting lack of compensation.

  Considerations 9-11, 14 & 17

  Extract:

  The Tribunal [...] notes that, in the impugned decision, the Director-General did not properly analyse whether or not it was appropriate to provide compensation for the moral injury suffered by the complainant as a victim of the harassment identified by the investigator in her report and recognized by the Organization. In so doing, the Director-General acted in breach of [the] provisions [which] established the complainant’s right to obtain explanations concerning compensation measures that may have been imposed taking into account the harassment identified in the investigation report; however, the Director-General did not attempt such explanations in the impugned decision. [...]
  In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the Director-General’s comments in the impugned decision concerning the disciplinary actions or corrective measures that could not be taken due to the retirement of Mr N. and Ms D. did not relate to compensation for the victim of the harassment, namely the complainant.
  Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that the Director-General appears to have considered that the payment of benefits received by the complainant under Annex II to the Staff Regulations, further to the recognition of the health problems from which she suffered as a result of the harassment as a service-incurred illness, covered all the injury suffered by the complainant. However, such benefits are not intended to cover the moral injury resulting from this harassment.
  The Tribunal further notes that the Director-General’s other comment contained in the impugned decision, that the investigation report would help in some measure to bring the matter to a close, did not, in the circumstances of the case, constitute adequate compensation.
  With regard to the Director-General’s comment that, if the complainant required any further support or assistance he encouraged her to make her needs known to HRD, this also was not compensation. [...] The Organization adds that, where a right to
  compensation exists, express provision is made in the relevant texts. However, it contends that there is no express provision requiring the Director-General to award financial compensation in the procedure for the administrative resolution of harassment grievances.
  The Tribunal cannot accept the defendant’s reading of the relevant provisions, which provide expressly for the right to redress of a staff member subjected to harassment and require the Director-General to consider the applicable remedies in a situation where harassment is recognized. The assertion that no express provision requires the Director-General to grant financial compensation is based on a confusion between the right to redress and the nature of the relief that could be awarded. While it is true that redress does not automatically imply the award of financial compensation and that, in some cases, measures other than the payment of a sum of money may prove adequate, the fact remains that the Organization ought first to have determined the appropriate redress for the complainant in the circumstances of the case, which it did not properly do.
  Furthermore, in Judgment 4602, considerations 14 and 16, the Tribunal recalled that, even in a situation where no provision in the internal regulations, rules or policies directly provides for the possibility of a compensation to victims of harassment, its case law clearly recognizes the right to such compensation when properly supported:
  “14. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal considers that the WTO’s assertion, to the effect that no provision in the internal regulations, rules or policies directly provides for the possibility of a compensation to the individuals who filed a harassment complaint, is in tension with and indeed ignores its rather clear case law which recognises the right to such compensation when properly supported. In Judgment 4207, consideration 15, adopted by all seven judges, the Tribunal wrote the following on this issue:
  ‘It is observed that there are no specific provisions in the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules that articulate a comprehensive procedure to deal with a claim of harassment of the type first discussed in the preceding consideration. In the absence of a lawful comprehensive procedure within the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to deal with a claim of harassment, the IAEA had to respond to the complainant’s claim of harassment in accordance with the Tribunal’s relevant case law. It is well settled in the case law that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members (see Judgment 2706, consideration 5, citing Judgment 2524). As well, ‘given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an international organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself [...]’ (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14). Moreover, the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Additionally, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 2706, consideration 5, ‘an international organisation is liable for all the injuries caused to a staff member by their supervisor acting in the course of his or her duties, when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to his or her personal and professional dignity’ (see also Judgments 1609, consideration 16, 1875, consideration 32, and 3170, consideration 33). Thus, an international organization must take proper actions to protect a victim of harassment.’ These principles have been recognized by the Tribunal’s case law in a number of situations before that Judgment 4207 (see, for example, Judgments 3995, consideration 9, and 3965, considerations 9 and 10) as well as after that Judgment 4207 (see, for example, Judgments 4547, consideration 3, and 4541, consideration 4).
  [...]
  16. The Tribunal observes that the WTO’s position is not that victims of harassment are not entitled to compensation. It rather argues that relief must be confined to compensation for the injury caused and that a finding of an unlawful act does not in itself establish a sufficient ground for compensation. The Tribunal in fact understands from the assertions contained in the WTO’s pleadings that the Organization recognizes the complainant’s strong emotions in relation to her request for additional compensation and does not wish, by its contestation, to belittle her feelings in this regard in any way. The WTO emphasizes, however, that any requests for additional compensation sought by the complainant must still meet the applicable legal requirements. On this matter, the Tribunal’s case law indicates that any complainant seeking compensation for material or moral damages must provide clear evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the injury and the unlawful act (see, for instance, Judgments 4158, consideration 4, 3778, consideration 4, 2471, consideration 5, 1942, consideration 6, and 732, consideration 3), and that it is the complainant who bears the burden of proof in this respect (see Judgments 4158, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, and 4156, consideration 5).”
  The general principle that “an international organisation is liable for all the injuries caused to a staff member by their supervisor [...] when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to his or her personal and professional dignity”, asserted in Judgment 2706, consideration 5, and reiterated in the aforementioned Judgment 4207, applies all the more with regard to the measures to be considered by the executive head in a harassment situation (see also, on this subject, Judgments 4217, consideration 9, and 4171, consideration 11).
  Lastly, in Judgment 4299, consideration 5, the Tribunal recalled the following in a case where a staff member alleged to have been harassed and requested compensation:
  “It is true that a staff member who has, in the latter situation just discussed, established she or he has been harassed may also be entitled to an award of moral damages by the organization for the harassment (see, for example, Judgment 4158, consideration 3). Whether there is such an entitlement may depend on the terms of the regime in place within the organization to deal with harassment grievances. It is certainly something that can be awarded in proceedings in the Tribunal (see Judgment 4241, considerations 24 and 25). However, what is important is that, even if moral damages might be awarded, that is a subsidiary remedy or relief available in cases of this type when harassment is established. As just discussed, the primary obligation of the organization if harassment is proved is to protect the complainant and prevent further harassment.”
  In a situation similar to that of the complainant in the present case, the Tribunal’s case law recognizes that it is the responsibility of the organization that establishes the existence of harassment to redress the injury caused and that, ordinarily, this redress should take the form of monetary compensation for the injury suffered (see, on this subject, Judgment 4158, consideration 3).
  [I]t is true that redress for injury suffered by the victim of harassment may, in certain cases, take forms other than monetary compensation [...].
  [...]
  The Tribunal considers that the complainant has duly established the moral injury she has suffered as a result of the harassment recognized in the investigation report. Since the main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of repeated acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate them (see, for example, Judgment 4541, consideration 8), the complainant could legitimately, as she maintains, have felt demeaned by the actions of Mr N., and she could have felt that the latter was creating a hostile working environment in her regard, and thus have suffered substantial moral injury (see the aforementioned Judgment 4541, consideration 8).
  [...]
  [T]he Tribunal has repeatedly recognized the right of a staff member to the payment of monetary compensation for the moral injury suffered as a result of harassment and the resultant affront to her or his dignity (see, for example, Judgments 4663, considerations 17 and 20, 4241, considerations 24 and 25, 4217, consideration 9, and 3995, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2524, 2706, 3170, 3347, 3995, 4158, 4207, 4217, 4241, 4541, 4547, 4602, 4663
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; harassment; moral damages;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  In the circumstances, the Tribunal should normally refer the matter to the Director-General in order for him to determine the redress that it would be appropriate to contemplate as compensation for the injury suffered by the complainant as a result of the harassment established. However, in view of the time that has elapsed and the fact that there is sufficient evidence and information in the file to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision on the nature of this redress and to properly assess the amount of compensation for moral injury claimed by the complainant, it would be inappropriate to do so in this case (see, for example, Judgments 4663, consideration 17, 4602, consideration 18, and 4471, consideration 20).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4471, 4602, 4663
  

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; compensation; harassment; moral injury;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4797

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the modifications made to the procedure for examining patent applications and contest the validity of the internal appeal proceedings.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  Cases arise in the Tribunal where the defendant organisation has failed to consult a person or a body, which should have been consulted under the relevant rules, and the Tribunal may make orders which require that consultation take place and the Tribunal may also set aside the decision made without consultation (see, for example, Judgment 4230). But setting aside the decision is not an inevitable outcome following a conclusion that consultation should have, but did not, take place.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4230
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; competence of tribunal; consultation; iloat statute;
  

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  In the present case, the failure to consult the GAC occurred over a decade ago. Indeed, as noted earlier, the GAC was abolished in 2014, almost a decade ago. It cannot now be consulted. There is a suggestion in the pleas of both the complainants and the EPO that the Notice is no longer in force. If so, this would be relevant and militate strongly against granting relief based on the failure to consult. But even if it is in force, it is not apparent to the Tribunal that the Notice’s continued implementation would cause any real prejudice or injury to the complainants or the staff of the Office more generally. In these circumstances, it is clearly not advisable to rescind the decision adopting and promulgating the Notice notwithstanding the failure to consult the GAC. However, while Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute contemplates the awarding of compensation there should be none in the present case. That is because a staff representative, bringing proceedings in that capacity, is not entitled to an award of moral damages (see Judgment 4575, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4575
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; competence of tribunal; consultation; iloat statute;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4742

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for the unfair treatment she considers she has suffered because her applications for several positions were rejected and she was not able to take part in training.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that, in the present case, her complaint is limited to the Organisation’s “decision” to dismiss her claim for compensation for the moral injury it had caused her, pointing to the fact that she is not requesting that each of these individual selection decisions be set aside, which would render her claim receivable. The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, as it recalled in Judgment 4655, consideration 15, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. Endorsing the complainant’s argument would have the effect of authorising the Organisation’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in due time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4655
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4709

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal observes that, under the compensation scheme applicable in the event of illness attributable to official duty established by Article 8.3 of the Staff Regulations, which is the sole legal basis for the complainant’s compensation claim, the ILO incurs strict liability when such an illness is recognised but is not held negligent. While the award of compensation under this scheme does not rule out the possibility that the Organization may also be accused of negligence, the question of whether it is liable on that other basis is in principle a separate dispute (see, for example, Judgments 4222, consideration 15, 3946, consideration 17, and 3111, consideration 8). Consequently, the complainant is not in any event entitled, in the present case, to submit for the first time before the Tribunal claims based on the existence of such negligence.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3111, 3946, 4222
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; illness; service-incurred;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4663

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to acknowledge the harassment that she alleges she suffered and to provide her with the full inquiry report drawn up following her internal complaint against a colleague.

  Considerations 17-18

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant does not request in her submissions that her complaint of harassment be remitted to the Organization for a thorough inquiry. She confines herself to claiming redress for moral injury and seeking an award of damages. In view of this, the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to refer the case back to the Organization. Rather, the appropriate course in this case is to award the complainant adequate compensation for the moral injury caused by the decisions that the Tribunal will set aside. The Tribunal considers that there is sufficient evidence and information in the file to enable it to reach a decision on the extent of this injury.
  As can be seen from the foregoing, the complainant was deprived of her right to have a rigorous and thorough inquiry conducted into her complaint of harassment, which would, in all likelihood, have established that she had submitted a credible complaint of harassment in good faith. In addition, the complainant was deprived of her right to know whether the harassment against her had been acknowledged and of her right to receive the report of the preliminary inquiry into the complaint in good time.

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; compensation; harassment; moral injury;
  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >