Judgment No. 1525
Decision
1. The Director-General's decision of 22 September 1995 is set aside.
2. The complainant is referred back to UNESCO for reconsideration of his right to renewal of appointment.
3. The Organization shall pay him salary, allowances and any other benefits due as from 1 January 1995 until the Director-General takes the decision required under 2.
4. It shall pay him 15,000 French francs in costs.
5. His other claims are dismissed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Director-General took a premature decision not to renew the complainant's appointment. The Tribunal holds that "for want of a valid decision to terminate his appointment, the contract between the complainant and the organization is still in force and he is entitled to payment of salary and allowances as from the purported date of termination. UNESCO must also decide whether to reinstate him. In view of his seniority his appointment would not have been bound to end if due process had been observed. In deciding whether or not to renew his contract the organization must comply with any procedural and substantive rules that are material."
Keywords
advisory body; contract; extension of contract; reinstatement; non-renewal of contract; flaw; procedural flaw; advisory opinion; consequence
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The breach of due process [that tainted the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment] caused him moral injury that warrants redress. But he has sufficient redress in the award of full pay from the date of his departure without having had to provide any services in return [the Tribunal cites the case law]".
Keywords
decision; moral injury; case law; reinstatement; salary; non-renewal of contract; procedural flaw; compensation; date
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consulting an advisory board before the Director-General takes a decision not to extend an appointment "is no idle formality: it is supposed to afford a means of working out a fair solution. In this case it offered the hope of redeploying someone with a long record of service.Several judgments have stressed the importance of advisory boards: see for example Judgment 352 [...], under 5."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 352
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; decision; advisory body; staff member's interest; patere legem; contract; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; advisory opinion; purpose
| 
