Judgment No. 4669
Decision
1. There is no need to rule on the complaint insofar as it seeks repayment of the sums wrongly deducted from the complainant’s salary for the period from 17 June 2013 to 31 December 2015.
2. The decision of the Secretary General of Interpol of 11 September 2020 is set aside.
3. The Organization shall pay the complainant interest for late payment calculated as indicated in consideration 12 of the judgment.
4. It shall also pay the complainant 3,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; negligence; organisation's duties; refund; interest on arrears; medical insurance
Consideration 2
Extract:
The evidence in the file shows that, once URSSAF had made the corresponding reimbursements, the Organization refunded to the complainant the sums wrongly levied in respect of the ESC for the period after 1 January 2013. Thus, apart from the question of interest, the complaint is now moot.
Keywords
claim moot
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for interest for late payment on the sums that were repaid to her. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decision had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions, and the corresponding interest, conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and implied that interest for late payment could be considered only if URSSAF or the French authorities paid such interest. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords
decision; injury; refund; host state
Considerations 7, 9-11
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that interest for late payment simply represents an objective form of compensation for the time that has elapsed since the date on which an amount was due, and the mere fact that there was a delay in the payment of that amount is sufficient to justify the payment of interest, whether or not the debtor was at fault (see Judgments 4093, consideration 8, and 1403, consideration 8). Interpol’s argument that it was not negligent is therefore, in any event, irrelevant.
[...]
[A]s regards the absence of any provision in Interpol’s Staff Regulations or Rules providing for the payment of interest on sums due to the Organization’s officials, the Tribunal recalls that the requirement to pay such interest arises even without such a provision pursuant to the general principles governing the liability of international organisations.
It is appropriate, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, to apply the principle that interest is due ipso jure whenever a principal amount is payable, which is in particular the case where amounts have been wrongly deducted from remuneration that was due to be paid on a fixed date. In this scenario, the starting point for the interest to be paid is the due date for each payment from which an amount was wrongly deducted, that due date being equivalent by itself to service of notice (see, in particular, Judgments 3180, consideration 12, 2782, consideration 6, and 2076, consideration 10).
The complainant requests that the rate of interest payable be set at 10 per cent per annum. However, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from its usual practice of setting the rate of interest for late payment at 5 per cent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1403, 2076, 2782, 3180, 4093
Keywords
general principle; interest on arrears
Consideration 13
Extract:
Given that the complainant is assisted by a counsel who filed several similar complaints to this one and that the submissions filed in those cases are largely identical, the Tribunal considers it fair to set costs at 3,000 euros.
Keywords
costs
|
