Judgment No. 173
Decision
1. The Organisation's claims are irreceivable to the extent that they relate to reduction of the pension granted to the complainant under the impugned decision.
2. The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 1
Extract:
"According to Article II, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall be open only [a] to the official, even if his employment has ceased, and to any person on whom the official's rights have devolved on his death; [b] to any other person who can show that he is entitled to some right under the terms of appointment of a deceased official or under provisions of the staff regulations on which the official could rely."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 141
Keywords
locus standi; iloat statute
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[A]n organization may not submit a complaint to the Tribunal nor [...] claims for the modification of the impugned decision to the prejudice of the complainant." It may simply propose that the original complaint be dismissed in whole or in part. "Consequently, the organization's claims in the present case are irreceivable to the extent that they relate to the reduction of the complainant's pension."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 141
Keywords
claim; locus standi; reply; counterclaim; pension; impugned decision
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to the experts, the complainant is consciously simulating his disability, at least for the most part. such simulation constitutes fault within the meaning of [the applicable provision] since conscious simulation constitutes fraud, the highest degree of fault. It is immaterial whether or not the complainant's conscious behaviour has become unconscious; even if the simulation is at present to some extent involuntary it results from a voluntary form of deception, i.e. fault."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 141
Keywords
complainant; misconduct; invalidity
Consideration 3
Extract:
In cases where the affected persons are at fault, their disability pension may be reduced under the applicable provision. "[T]he Tribunal cannot reduce the benefits granted to the complainant in accordance with the impugned decision [...] without there being any need to examine whether the fault attributable to the complainant would in itself have warranted the cancellation of the pension awarded, it is sufficient to find that in any case, in view of the experts' report, the reduction made under the impugned decision is in no way excessive."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 141
Keywords
liability; complainant; misconduct; disability benefit; invalidity; judicial review; consequence; reduction of salary
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The present complaint concerns the rate of disability pension payable under the regulations of the [organization's] staff insurance scheme [...] issued on the basis of the [...] staff regulations and rules and [...] regarded as forming part of them. The Tribunal is therefore competent to hear the complainant's claims. It is immaterial that [the regulations of the scheme] make no express provision for appeals to the Tribunal. Whatever the material legal texts in the light of which the complaint should be examined, the Tribunal's competence derives from its own statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 141
Keywords
competence of tribunal; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; provision; insurance; disability benefit; health insurance
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The experts appointed by the Tribunal found that the complainant is suffering from a "motor hemisyndrome on the right side which is not organic in origin" and which is due mainly to extraordinarily persistent and skilful simulation. [...]
In the present case the Tribunal can only base its judgment upon the experts' findings, which it has no reason to question. As the parties themselves admit, the experts discharged their responsibilities admirably. Their thorough analysis testifies both to their conscientiousness and to the depth of their scientific knowledge. There is nothing to suggest that their findings are incorrect or incomplete [...].
Moreover, since the examination was ordered by the Tribunal because of the disagreement among the many physicians who had previously examined the complainant, it is not surprising that the experts should differ from some of their colleagues."
Keywords
medical opinion; judicial review
| 
