Judgment No. 4585
Decision
1. The impugned decision of 19 August 2019 is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to UNIDO in order for the Director-General to make a decision as referred to in consideration 18 of the judgment.
3. UNIDO shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 8,000 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision made concerning the extent of his service-incurred disability, the date until which he should be paid compensation for disability, and the payment of the fees of the medical experts who examined his case.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; case sent back to organisation; disability benefit
Consideration 5
Extract:
UNIDO’s counterclaim [...], as it recognizes in its reply, concerns a decision separate from the impugned decision, thus falling outside the scope of the present case.
Keywords
counterclaim
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has reviewed the ABCC’s report and the Medical Board’s reports. The Tribunal recalls its consistent precedent that it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to decide whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 5, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4237
Keywords
competence of tribunal; medical board; medical opinion
Consideration 20
Extract:
Regarding the alleged delay in the internal appeal process, […] [t]he Tribunal finds that the length of the internal appeal process was excessive, but the delay was due in part to the difficulties in constituting the Medical Board and in part to the divergent opinions and the submission of supplementary answers by the Medical Board. According to its case law, the Tribunal does not automatically grant moral damages for excessive delay. The complainant must produce evidence of the injury suffered and the causal link between the length of the procedure and the injury (see, for example, Judgment 4493, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the complainant has not proven that he was adversely affected by the delay. Accordingly, his request for moral damages is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4493
Keywords
burden of proof; delay in internal procedure
| 
