Judgment No. 4751
Decision
The complaint is dismissed, as is the ICC’s counterclaim.
Summary
The complainant challenges the ICC’s refusal to grant his request for several special post allowances.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
special post allowance; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s submissions are mainly based on his own interpretation of the duties and responsibilities he actually carried out, as well as on a personal appraisal of his performance, which cannot be taken into account by the Tribunal.
Keywords
special post allowance; judicial review
Consideration 5
Extract:
As a counterclaim, the ICC has asked the Tribunal “to award costs against the [c]omplainant, including the costs of filing submissions”, on the grounds that he “pointlessly and wilfully initiated and prolonged a dispute, with considerable consequences for the defendant [o]rganisation’s resources in terms of the related costs”, in particular by refusing the offer of an amicable settlement.
While it follows from what has been said above that the complaint is unfounded, that does not mean that it can be considered as vexatious. Admittedly, in the present case, the organisation does not contend that the complaint is vexatious on account of its actual content but that the complainant did not have a legitimate reason for filing it since he was offered an amicable settlement. However, the Tribunal cannot take account of information concerning any negotiations – which are inherently confidential – conducted by the parties with a view to settling a dispute before it amicably (see Judgments 4457, consideration 2, and 3586, consideration 5). Hence it could not, in any event, issue orders on the basis of such information (see Judgment 4639, consideration 11).
There are therefore no grounds for granting the ICC’s counterclaim.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4457, 4639
Keywords
counterclaim; amicable settlement; confidentiality
|
