Judgment No. 1406
Decision
1. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT, OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNTS ALREADY GRANTED TO HER BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF THREE MONTHS' PAY TO BE RECKONED ON THE BASIS OF THE EMOLUMENTS SHE WOULDHAVE GOT FROM 1 OCTOBER TO 31 DECEMBER 1993, PLUS INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10 PER CENT A YEAR FROM THE DATE AT WHICH EACH MONTHLY PAYMENT WOULD HAVE FALLEN DUE.
2. THE IMPUGNED DECISION BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL IS UPHELD IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, INCLUDING THE GRANT OF COMPENSATION FOR MORAL INJURY.
3. THE WHO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 7,500 SWISS FRANCS IN COSTS.
4. HER OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant wants the Tribunal to hold hearings and call witnesses "if it needs proof of any facts. Since the WHO has produced further evidence, there is no need for such hearings. Moreover, the disclosure of that evidence satisfies the Tribunal that there has been due process."
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; oral proceedings; adversarial proceedings; due process; actuary
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant may not validly argue that she held a contract with the organization. Although she and various officers of the WHO did sign a proposal to extend her contract, it "was never approved by the competent officers; besides, it did not purport to be a decision and was not binding upon the WHO. So there is no valid basis in law for the rights she is claiming from the organization."
Keywords
decision; contract; non-renewal of contract; binding character; effect; proposal
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal is quite satisfied on the evidence that the complainant was not treated as she ought to have been. It is true that the French government was to blame for the shilly-shallying and shifts of attitude she had to put up with [...] but the organization's fault, though limited, is beyond dispute."
Keywords
injury; liability; member state; organisation's duties; staff member's interest
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal dismisses [the complainant's] claims to reinstatement or payment of two years' salary and to further moral damages to cover the injury to her future financial prospects since there was nothing unlawful in the WHO's refusal to reinstate her or extend her appointment."
Keywords
claim; moral injury; good faith; organisation's duties; contract; reinstatement; non-renewal of contract; material damages
| 
