Judgment No. 2116
Decision
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE FAO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT COMPENSATION IN AN AMOUNT OF 15,000 EUROS.
3. IT SHALL PAY HER 6,000 EUROS IN COSTS.
4. ALL OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"Misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it."
Keywords
evidence; burden of proof; misuse of authority; abuse of power
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Relations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith. Furthermore, an organisation must treat its staff with due consideration and avoid causing them undue injury. In particular, it must inform them in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or rightful interests (see, for example, Judgment 1756 [...], under 10(a) and the others cited therein; and for more recent cases, Judgments 2017 [...]; 2051 [...]; 2067 [...]; and 2072 [...])."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1756, 2017, 2051, 2067, 2072
Keywords
decision; case law; good faith; organisation's duties; duty to inform; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; staff member's duties
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; material injury; moral injury; time limit; date of notification; delay; organisation's duties; duty to inform; staff member's interest; assignment; post classification; appointment; competition; candidate; competition cancelled; vacancy notice; post; material damages
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A staff member who files an appeal is entitled to expect a decision to be taken within a reasonable time. Since an internal appeal is a necessary prelude to judicial review, the organization too must respect the need for expeditious proceedings. In this case more than two-and-a-half years elapsed between the complainant's appeal to the Appeals Committee and the Director-General's decision to reject it. Circumstances and the nature of the case demanded an expeditious appeal procedure. Since, in the internal appeal, the complainant was challenging a decision not to keep her on and claiming reinstatement, she needed to know quickly what the outcome of the appeal would be. Indeed, her future to some extent depended on it. Though it raised some delicate issues, the case was not particularly complex. The conclusion is that the appeal was not sufficiently expeditious. The amount of time usually needed to deal with such a case was far exceeded. As a result the complainant suffered injury warranting redress."
Keywords
moral injury; internal appeals body; internal appeal; time limit; delay; exception; reasonable time; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; contract; non-renewal of contract; material damages
| 
