Financial considerations (833,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Financial considerations
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4844

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  In its reply, the Organization asks the Tribunal to order the joinder of these two complaints, on the grounds that the two internal appeals lodged by the complainant against the initial decisions [...] were joined by order of the Joint Appeals Committee, that the two complaints are “inseparably” linked and that joining them would allow savings to be made on the management costs that would be incurred if the Tribunal were to deal with the cases separately.
  The complainant states that he is strongly opposed to this request for joinder, contending in particular that, “in advocating a joinder of cases before the Tribunal on economic grounds”, the Organization breaches its own rules concerning the joinder of internal appeals, causes delays to the appeal procedure and adversely affects the right of appeal, both administrative and contentious, by making the conditions for the exercise of that right more stringent.
  The Tribunal recalls its case law, according to which, in principle, the touchstone for the joinder of complaints is that they involve the same or similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events (see Judgment 4753, consideration 6). Recently, the Tribunal has specifically stated that the cost of judgments is an irrelevant consideration in that regard (see Judgment 4822, consideration 4).
  In the present case, the Tribunal acknowledges that there is a certain connection between the decision to suppress the complainant’s post [...] and the decision to terminate his appointment when it was not possible to reassign him thereafter. However, the decisions in question are different in nature, the legal context for each is, in part, individual, and the fundamental issues raised are different. It must also be noted that the two decisions are not entirely interdependent, since a measure taken to suppress a post could be followed by a reassignment decision, the outcome of which would be completely different from a termination of appointment. It is irrelevant in this respect that the Joint Appeals Committee, acting within its own prerogative, considered it appropriate to join the two internal appeals that had been referred to it.
  For these reasons, the Tribunal will not order that the two complaints be joined in the light of the aforementioned case law.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753, 4822
  

  Keywords:

  financial considerations; joinder;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4822

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The Organisation asked that the two complaints be joined because it considers that they rest on the same facts and originate from the same decision of 29 January 2020. But, while it is true that the facts in each of these complaints are part of a same continuum of events, the legal issues raised in each of them are different. The two complaints also do not pertain to the same impugned decision. The provisions of the Staff Rules and Regulations involved are furthermore not the same, and the processes that led to the impugned decisions identified by the complainant were not the same either. Finally, the reasons developed by the parties, notably on the issues of receivability, are different from one complaint to the other.
  Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined. But, if necessary, the Tribunal will refer to the two judgments to avoid any potential overlapping.
  In this regard, the Tribunal observes that one of the motivations for the request for joinder of the Organisation is pecuniary. In the proceedings it filed in the second complaint, ESO mentioned that a joinder “would absolve [the Organisation] from having to pay twice the Tribunal’s substantial court expenses irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”.
  The starting point in dealing with this issue is whether the cost to the organisation is a relevant consideration in determining whether there should be joinder. The principles applied by the Tribunal on the general issue of joinder have developed over a period of more than 45 years. As discussed in Judgment 4753, consideration 3:
  “Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.”
  And later in consideration 6:
  “The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. [...]”
  The cost to the organisation of multiple judgments has no part to play in the exercise of the discretionary power concerning joinder. It is an irrelevant consideration.
  Additionally, while ESO pleads that having only one judgment would protect the Organisation “against the cost[s] and administrative demands of unnecessary litigation issues”, the Tribunal cannot ignore that ESO itself acknowledged that “it is the law of its Staff Rules and Regulations which provide that different procedures apply for challenging the Director General’s decisions not to grant [the] complainant an indefinite contract and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond the one year granted”. In other words, there are two different and separate complaints filed not because of unnecessary litigation issues raised by the complainant, but because of the way the Staff Rules and Regulations of ESO are organized.
  That said, the Tribunal notes, however, that, while arguing that the submission of two complaints was not chosen by him since he had no other alternative than to follow the procedural paths imposed by the Organisation, the complainant still disputes the assertion of ESO that it should not “be punished twice for the same conduct”. As a result, he maintained the separate claims for relief sought in both complaints even though there was clearly some overlapping between the two. Conceding there was indeed some overlapping here would have been the expected and logical position to adopt on the part of the complainant. It is regrettable to see that he did not do so.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
  

  Keywords:

  financial considerations; joinder;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3135

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 25

  Extract:

  [T]he fact that the amendment of this term of employment was prompted by financial considerations does not in itself make it unlawful (see, for example, [...] Judgments 832, 2682 and 2986).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 2682, 2986
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; financial considerations;