Judgment No. 3586
Decision
1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount of 80,000 United States dollars.
3. WHO shall also pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 30,000 United States dollars.
4. WHO shall pay interest on the sums referred to in points 2 and 3 at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of public delivery of this judgment until the date of payment, unless these sums are paid within 30 days of the date of public delivery of this judgment.
5. WHO shall also pay to the complainant costs in the amount of 6,000 United States dollars.
6. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; equity; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; duty of care
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all of the materials an adjudicating body such as the HBA uses in an internal appeal, and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process. WHO breached due process by not having provided the relevant documents to the complainant. It also breached due process by not disclosing all of the agreements and related information, which could have assisted the HBA to have made a properly informed determination whether financial constraint was a valid reason for not extending the complainant’s contract.
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; due process
Consideration 24
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 1775, under 7, reiterated in Judgments 3192, under 13, and 3314, under 9 for example:
“Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where [...] the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3192, 3314
Keywords
burden of proof; bias; personal prejudice
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11).
The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, under 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1349, 2861, 3299
Keywords
legitimate expectation; fixed-term
|
