|
|
 |
|
|
Loss of opportunity (665,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Loss of opportunity
Total judgments found: 46
1, 2, 3 | 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 36
Extract:
“As an alternative to reinstatement, the complainant is entitled to an award of material damages […] which are not corresponding to the whole loss of her salary. Material damages should be determined taking into account that if the disciplinary proceedings would have been properly carried out, she might have been issued with a less severe sanction which might, in any case, have had financial consequences for her. The Tribunal deems it appropriate and fair to assess the material damages in a lump sum equivalent to the complainant’s remuneration for two years, which will be calculated on the basis of the net salary and allowances of any kind which she was receiving at the time of her dismissal, without deducting from this sum any earnings which she may have received since then. As this lump sum must be regarded as compensating for the entire material injury suffered by the complainant, there is no need to add to it the amount of the pension contributions relating to the remuneration in question or to pay interest for late payment thereon (see, for example, Judgment 4660, consideration 22).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4660
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material damages; termination of employment;
Judgment 5153
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 16
Extract:
“Without descending into detail, the normative legal framework governing temporary appointments in WHO, and the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 4916, consideration 8), make it quite clear that there can be no expectation of appointment to a further temporary contract after the expiry of an existing one. Nonetheless, he lost the valuable opportunity to have his contract extended and is, accordingly, entitled to material damages equivalent to six months of net salary at the grade NO-C, step 2 level.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4916
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material damages; material injury; non-renewal of contract;
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 5057
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 classer sa plainte pour représailles à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
Le préjudice ici invoqué présente dès lors un caractère purement hypothétique qui s’oppose, en soi, à l’ouverture d’un droit à indemnisation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4222, au considérant 18, 3507, au considérant 19, ou 2287, au considérant 8). Au surplus, le Tribunal estime que le lien de causalité allégué entre l’illégalité de la décision de classement de la plainte litigieuse au stade de l’examen préliminaire et l’absence d’avancement d’échelon ou de promotion du requérant est de toute façon trop indirect pour que de telles conclusions puissent être utilement présentées dans le cadre de la présente affaire. […]
[L]e fait que le requérant ait été privé, en raison du classement erroné de sa plainte par la Conseillère pour l’éthique, du droit de voir cette plainte adéquatement examinée lui a causé, en soi, un préjudice moral qu’il y a lieu d’indemniser (voir, pour des exemples comparables, les jugements 4922, au considérant 18, 4883, au considérant 10, ou 4471, au considérant 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2287, 3507, 4222, 4471, 4883, 4922
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury;
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 10
Extract:
[S]’agissant du préjudice matériel que le requérant prétend avoir subi en raison de son renvoi sans préavis pour faute grave, le Tribunal considère qu’au regard des circonstances de l’espèce et des relations particulièrement tendues qui, au vu du dossier, s’étaient développées entre le requérant et l’Organisation au cours des derniers mois de son engagement, les chances de l’intéressé de voir son contrat de durée déterminée en cours renouvelé à son terme étaient illusoires. Aucune indemnisation d’une perte de chance appréciable d’obtenir un tel renouvellement ne sera donc accordée au requérant.
En revanche, l’intéressé a droit au versement des traitements, indemnités et autres avantages pécuniaires de toute nature dont il aurait bénéficié si sa relation d’emploi avec l’UNESCO s’était poursuivie jusqu’au terme de son contrat, soit jusqu’au 30 avril 2020. L’Organisation lui versera en outre l’équivalent des cotisations qu’elle aurait dû acquitter auprès de la Caisse commune des pensions du personnel des Nations Unies dans cette même hypothèse. L’Organisation est en droit de déduire de cette somme les éventuels gains professionnels, ainsi que les versements de pension de retraite, que le requérant aurait perçus au titre de cette période.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; renewal of contrat;
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 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks material damages equivalent to the remuneration, including benefits and allowances, she would have received had her contract been renewed for one year. It should be noted that the complainant held a temporary appointment which, according to its terms and the Tribunal’s case law, carried no expectation of renewal (see, for example, Judgments 4588, consideration 19, 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3580, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). Even if the complainant’s 2020 PAR had been properly conducted and there was no flaw in the procedure, there is no guarantee that it would have resulted in a favourable outcome for the renewal of her appointment. However, since the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to have her contract renewed, she is entitled to material damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the amount of 30,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3448, 3580, 4462, 4587, 4588
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material damages; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance report;
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied the complainant suffered a moral injury as a result of being denied the right of review of the medical assessment leading directly to the termination of his employment, effective 1 October 2018. He is entitled to moral damages which are assessed in the sum of 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; medical opinion; moral damages; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; mandatory time limit; medical opinion; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 4845
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment following the suppression of his post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
As regards material injury, the complainant merely states, without offering further explanation, that the injury is undeniable, and assesses it at 120,000 euros at least.
However, the Tribunal notes that the complainant had been appointed under a fixed-term contract which was due to expire on 31 January 2020 and was not necessarily renewable, but was subject to two months’ notice and the payment of an indemnity on termination of appointment. The complainant ultimately benefited from that notice and from that payment, in fact for a longer period than that to which he would normally have been entitled, since there was a three-month period in place for completion of the reassignment process, during which time he continued to receive his full pay.
It is uncontested that the complainant’s duties were, at least in part, outsourced. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant’s post would, in any event, have been inevitably suppressed in the short term. A new reassignment process should thus have been commenced, in the course of which the complainant’s situation should have been examined in the light of any vacancies arising during a new three-month period.
The complainant therefore lost an opportunity to be reassigned within the Organization following a new reassignment process. However, [...] the Tribunal considers that the loss of opportunity was minimal.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity;
Judgment 4843
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant – whose post was suppressed – challenges the decision to transfer another official to a post to which he believes he should have been reassigned as a priority.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
First of all, and contrary to what the Organization submits, it is clear that the complainant had a cause of action in challenging the lawfulness of Ms M.’s appointment through an internal appeal, given that he himself was eligible to be appointed to that post. The question whether the complainant is correct in claiming that he should have been given priority over Ms M., or at least that his profile better suited the post in question, is a separate issue from his cause of action and has to be explored later, when the complaint is examined on the merits.
It also goes without saying that the decision to appoint Ms M. to a post for which the complainant was eligible constitutes an administrative decision that can be challenged by means of an internal appeal procedure and, subsequently, by a complaint before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4087, consideration 7, 3642, consideration 7, and 3450, consideration 7).
Similarly, contrary to what the Organization submits, in asserting in his internal appeal that efforts were supposed to be undertaken to reassign him within Interpol following the suppression of his post, the complainant was, implicitly but unquestionably, alleging a breach of the provisions of the Staff Manual relating to the reassignment process following the suppression of a post. The Secretary General himself had clearly acknowledged this given that, in the impugned decision, he had stated that the objection made by the complainant in support of his internal appeal formed part of the objections set out in an earlier internal appeal against the decision to terminate his appointment and that earlier appeal had been declared admissible. The argument put forward by the Organization in this regard is therefore irrelevant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3450, 3642, 4087
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; loss of opportunity;
Judgment 4670
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
[I]nterpol was negligent in several respects: firstly, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that it kept itself informed of changes to the French Social Security Code, such as that resulting in this case from the partial review of Article L. 131-9 of that Code by the Constitutional Council; secondly, it was unaware of the possibility of obtaining a retroactive refund of the unduly paid contributions provided for by Article L. 243-6 of the same Code; and, thirdly, even when it approached URSSAF and the host State’s authorities in 2019 with a view to obtaining a refund of the amounts deducted from its officials’ salaries in respect of the ESC, it failed to include in its requests the amounts corresponding to the sums deducted for the 2009-2012 period.
Having regard to the legal uncertainty referred to [...], which only the French authorities and courts could resolve, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was denied a valuable opportunity to receive a refund of the amounts of ESC deducted from her salary for the 2009-2012 period owing to Interpol’s negligence. In the circumstances of the case, the injury resulting from this loss of opportunity will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay the complainant compensation in an amount equivalent to half of the sums deducted from her salary for that period.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; negligence;
Judgment 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.
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
[I]nterpol was negligent in several respects: firstly, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that it kept itself informed of changes to the French Social Security Code, such as that resulting in this case from the partial review of Article L. 131-9 of that Code by the Constitutional Council; secondly, it was unaware of the possibility of obtaining a retroactive refund of the unduly paid contributions provided for by Article L. 243-6 of the same Code; and, thirdly, even when it approached URSSAF and the host State’s authorities in 2019 with a view to obtaining a refund of the amounts deducted from its officials’ salaries in respect of the ESC, it failed to include in its requests the amounts corresponding to the sums deducted for the 2009-2012 period.
Having regard to the legal uncertainty referred to [...], which only the French authorities and courts could resolve, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was denied a valuable opportunity to receive a refund of the amounts of ESC deducted from his salary for the 2009-2012 period owing to Interpol’s negligence. In the circumstances of the case, the injury resulting from this loss of opportunity will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay the complainant compensation in an amount equivalent to half of the sums deducted from his salary for that period.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; negligence;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[...] Interpol was negligent in several respects: firstly, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that it kept itself informed of changes to the French Social Security Code, such as that resulting in this case from the partial review of Article L. 131-9 of that Code by the Constitutional Council; secondly, it was unaware of the possibility of obtaining a retroactive refund of the unduly paid contributions provided for by Article L. 243-6 of the same Code; and, thirdly, even when it approached URSSAF and the host State’s authorities in 2019 with a view to obtaining a refund of the amounts deducted from its officials’ salaries in respect of the ESC, it failed to include in its requests the amounts corresponding to the sums deducted for the 2009-2012 period.
Having regard to the legal uncertainty referred to above, which only the French authorities and courts could resolve, the Tribunal considers that the complainants were denied a valuable opportunity to receive a refund of the amounts of ESC deducted from their salaries for the 2009-2012 period owing to Interpol’s negligence. In the circumstances of the case, the injury resulting from this loss of opportunity will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay each of the complainants compensation in an amount equivalent to half of the sums deducted from their salaries for that period.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; negligence;
Judgment 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 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant was denied a valuable opportunity to retain her employment with the ILO at least on a temporary basis as a result of the flaws in the termination of her appointment, and she is therefore entitled to compensation for the material injury caused.
Having regard, in particular, to the complainant’s age at the time of the termination of her appointment, which was only 43, and to the fact that she had held an appointment without limit of time since 2008, the Tribunal considers that, in the present case, this injury will be fairly redressed by ordering the ILO to pay the complainant, in addition to the sums already awarded to her on termination of her appointment, the equivalent of the salary and allowances of all kinds which she would have received if her appointment had continued beyond 31 May 2018 for two years, net of any income from employment that she may have received during this period. The Organization must also pay her the equivalent of the pension contributions that it would ordinarily have had to pay to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund as her employer for the same period. All these amounts shall bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum as from the respective dates on which they fell due until the date of their payment.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury;
Judgment 4583
135th Session, 2023
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for reasons of professional unsuitability and the decision to place him on special paid leave until the end of his period of notice.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks for an award of material damages equivalent to his salary and emoluments from the date the unlawful termination became effective until his ordinary retirement age (65 years) or even later (until the age of 68 years). The Tribunal observes that the complainant held an open-ended contract. According to Regulation R 2 6.08 “[a]n open-ended contract may be terminated at any time by either party”. According to Regulation R 2 6.10 “[t]he retirement age shall be 65 years. Service shall automatically cease on the last day of the month in which the 65th birthday falls. However, on an exceptional basis, a staff member may by mutual agreement with the Director General and in the interest of the Laboratory, carry on working until the age of 68.” In light of these Regulations, there is no evidence that the complainant’s appointment, had it not been unlawfully terminated, would have been extended until he would have reached the age of 68 years, as such extension is exceptional. Nor is there any certainty that, had the complainant’s appointment not been unlawfully terminated, it would have lasted until the ordinary retirement age of 65 years, as an open-ended contract may be terminated at any time. Nonetheless, the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to have his open-ended contract prolonged until his retirement age of 65 years. Considering that when the unlawful termination became effective (July 2022), the complainant was 62 and had three more years until reaching the ordinary retirement age, the Tribunal determines the material damages (under all heads, including loss of pension rights and interest) in the sum of 150,000 euros.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material damages;
Judgment 4540
134th Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant seeks reinstatement. In all the circumstances and particularly having regard to the three matters referred to in the preceding consideration and notably the third, it is more likely than not that the complainant will not establish a satisfactory working relationship with her colleagues and supervisors in PAHO (see Judgment 4310, consideration 13), if reinstated. Nonetheless, the complainant has lost a valuable opportunity to continue in employment with PAHO and it cannot be assumed there is no prospect at all, of her entirely abandoning her confrontational, rude and disagreeable behaviour. She is entitled to material damages for this loss […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4310
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; reinstatement;
Judgment 4518
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-appointment to a fixed-term position and the non-renewal of his short-term contract, as well as the organisation’s refusal to conduct an investigation into the allegations of harassment made against him which, according to him, form the basis of the non-appointment and non-renewal decisions.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Whilst in the circumstances of this case it would be impracticable to order the complainant’s reinstatement, ITU will be ordered to compensate him because he was denied the opportunity to be appointed to the advertised post on a two-year contract in circumstances where he was the only candidate whom the Director of TSB and the Chief of Department had […] recommended to fill the post after the selection procedure. But for the unsubstantiated allegations, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that he would have been appointed.
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; loss of opportunity; reinstatement;
Judgment 4506
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the length of the extension of appointment that was offered to him.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, in theory, would be entitled to material damages for the loss of opportunity to have his contract extended more than two years. However, considering that on 1 October 2018 the complainant’s appointment was terminated for health reasons, the Tribunal finds that the loss of opportunity is not proven […].
Keywords:
loss of opportunity;
Judgment 4490
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of damages awarded for the unlawful decision not to renew her fixed-term contract as a Principal Director and to reinstate her in a lower-level post instead.
Considerations 10-12
Extract:
The Appeals Committee was correct in approaching the assessment of damages for the unlawful non-renewal decision as ultimately requiring an assessment of what were the prospects that the contract would, at its expiry, be renewed by lawful decision in any event and, viewed from that perspective, assessing the financial consequences to the complainant in losing the opportunity to have the contract renewed (see, for example, Judgments 2867, consideration 18, 4062, consideration 17, and 4170, consideration 15). […]
If a decision is made not to renew a fixed-term contract but the decision was unlawful then an assessment must be made of lost future income with the organisation (adjusted and offset by any future income from other employment) which will involve an assessment of what the prospects were of the contract being renewed and its duration.
However, the position would, at least in a case such as the present, be no different in substance if the complainant’s grievance had initially been and had remained an allegation of constructive dismissal. In a case of unlawful dismissal, if reinstatement is not ordered (in this case not sought), then the material damages are the lost future income in the position with the organisation adjusted by an assessment of whether the staff member would have remained in that position and, if not, also adjusted by future income from other employment (see Judgment 4234, consideration 10). This assessment can also be approached compendiously by assessing the value of the lost opportunity to remain in employment (see, for example, Judgment 4305, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2867, 4062, 4170, 4234, 4305
Keywords:
constructive dismissal; loss of opportunity; material injury; non-renewal of contract;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
