Injury (46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Injury
Total judgments found: 183
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 3946
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amounts she was awarded for the delay in processing her request for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 17
Extract:
A claim for compensation for “actual and consequential” injuries is an entirely different claim that extends an organisation’s liability beyond its liability under a no-fault regime. As the Tribunal has consistently held, establishing such a claim requires proof of negligence on the part of the organization or the intentional breach of a duty (see Judgment 2843, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2843
Keywords:
injury; liability; negligence;
Judgment 3450
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside the contested appointment because the complainant's right to a fair and open competition was violated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; injury; medical board;
Judgment 3258
116th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants argued that their rights of staff representatives had been violated, but their claim for pecuniary compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainants challenge final decisions maintaining earlier decisions not to grant the compensation claims submitted by the complainants, who considered that they had suffered injury on account of violations of the rights of staff representatives.
"By their very nature, such violations of the rights of staff representatives cannot, under any circumstances, give rise to any right to financial compensation in favour of an individual staff member or his or her successors in title."
Keywords:
compensation; decision; injury; right; staff representative;
Judgment 3250
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was recognized as a victim of institutional harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"While the conduct of management which is necessary and reasonable would not constitute harassment, the present case demonstrates how continued mismanagement showing gross negligence on the part of the Organization cannot justify any longer the “managerial need” for the repeated temporary transfers of the complainant which had an ill effect on her. Taken individually, the isolated incidents [...] can perhaps be considered as improper but managerially justified, but taken as a whole the effect is much more damaging to the complainant and can no longer be excused by administrative necessity."
Keywords:
harassment; injury; institutional harassment; negligence; organisation's duties; professional injury; transfer; working conditions;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that intent is not a necessary element of harassment and, in this case, it is not a single episode which creates the problem, but instead it is the accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. As such, the JAAB’s finding that “the long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Office […] compromised [the complainant’s] dignity and career” is well founded and the Tribunal is of the opinion that this administrative wrongdoing can be defined as institutional harassment."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; harassment; injury; institutional harassment; organisation's duties; professional injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3215
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; material damages; negligence; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred; working conditions;
Judgment 3173
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the refusal to grant her compensation for an illness which she considers as attributable to the performance of her official duties.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The approach of the Organization, which is a reflection of the position adopted by the Managing Director, involves an assumption which would not, in all cases, be correct. The assumption is that work-related stress said by an employee to be the result of abuse and harassment, can only arise if, as an objective fact, there has been abuse and harassment. Such an approach takes no account of the possibility that stress can be the product of perceptions and not reality. Put slightly differently, an employee may be exposed to conduct which, viewed objectively, would not be characterised as abuse and harassment. But it does not follow that exposure to that conduct could not induce work-related stress in an employee who perceived that conduct as abusive and harassing. For this reason the answer to the question that was to be considered by the independent panel, i.e. whether the complainant had been subjected to “constant harassment and abuse” by her supervisor would not necessarily have answered the question raised by the complainant’s claim for compensation considered by the [Advisory Board on Compensation Claims]. Her claim raised the question of whether her supervisor’s conduct caused a stress-related illness not whether his conduct, viewed objectively, could be characterised as abuse and harassment."
Keywords:
advisory body; compensation; harassment; injury; service-incurred; working conditions;
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3141
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 45
Extract:
[I]n the very special circumstances of this case, WHO must be held responsible for the fact that – even if, in cancelling his journey to Côte d’Ivoire, the complainant’s reaction to the situation at that time was inappropriate – he was objectively deprived by the unlawful termination of his appointment of a possibility of regularising his stay in Switzerland and thereafter possibly continuing in service in the Organization. The injury thus suffered calls for redress the terms of which will be determined by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
damages; injury; termination of employment;
Judgment 3134
113th Session, 2012
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t is not disputed that the Secretary of the Provident Scheme gave a positive oral response to the complainant's request and assured him that the transfer would be effected as soon as the agreement had been signed, and there is no doubt that in so doing the Secretary was acting in the exercise of his functions. The complainant could therefore assume in good faith that his rights would be transfered to the UNJSPF without his having to approach the Fund himself, in the manner provided for in Article 4 of the Agreement.
The Provident Scheme did not, however, effect the expected transfer, as the letter [...] from its Secretary shows, nor does that letter explain why it had omitted to do so. It follows that the UPU has been negligent in this regard. It is clear that there is a sufficient causal link between its negligence and the injury suffered by the complainant, the amount of which remains to be determined.
Keywords:
causal link; injury; negligence;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]s a general rule, an organisation should refrain from passing on damaging information about a staff member. If the recipient of that information has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth [...] it should refrain from passing on damaging information without first giving the staff member an opportunity to challenge it and give his or her own account."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty of care; duty of discretion; injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; rebuttal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3035
111th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant was suspended from duty on 4 September 2008.
"The Tribunal finds that, in maintaining the complainant's suspension by his decision of 6 July 2009, the Director General extended the duration of this suspension beyond the reasonable limit accepted by the case law and thus caused the complainant moral and professional injury."
Keywords:
breach; case law; cause; date; executive head; extension of contract; injury; moral injury; professional injury; reasonable time; suspension;
Judgment 2976
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[I]n Judgment 2533 the Tribunal observed that compensation for injury properly included 'past and future adaptations to the complainant's house and car' and that those expenses were 'on no different footing than other necessary expenses incurred as a consequence of [...] service related injury'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2533
Keywords:
compensation; definition; disability benefit; health insurance; injury; insurance; medical expenses; service-incurred;
Judgment 2963
110th Session, 2011
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The rule against retrospectivity permits of two exceptions, namely where the decision involves no detriment to the staff member concerned and where the decision replaces an earlier provisional decision (see Judgment 1130, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1130
Keywords:
decision; exception; injury; non-retroactivity; provisional decision; staff member's interest;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[A] decision to terminate a staff member's service retrospectively involves necessarily a detriment in that it negates the possibility of notice allowing for the person concerned to make necessary arrangements during the notice period. This is so whether or not a payment is made in lieu of notice."
Keywords:
decision; injury; non-retroactivity; notice; payment; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Even though [...] the Organisation was entitled to reverse the decision wrongly promoting the complainant to grade A5, the factual error on which its initial decision rested was nonetheless negligent. By submitting a draft decision whose content had not been properly checked for signature by the President, the services of the Organisation displayed gross negligence, which is even less excusable in view of the fact that individual decisions on promotion are of a particularly sensitive nature. The complainant obviously had cause to be extremely disappointed because, having been notified of this decision, he was then told that it had been reversed and that he had been promoted simply to grade A(2). By proceeding in this manner the EPO breached the duty which the Tribunal's case law establishes for every international organisation not to cause its staff unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgments 1526, under 3, or 2007, under 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1526, 2007
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; injury; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation's duties; promotion; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 37
Extract:
"It is not possible to characterise administrative decisions as harassment simply because they are unlawful. In this regard, it was pointed out in Judgments 2370 and 2745 that actions or decisions that result 'from honest mistake or even [...] inefficiency' cannot constitute harassment. And if administrative decisions are taken for improper purposes, that is a matter that is more appropriately dealt with by way of moral damages, rather than on the basis of harassment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2745
Keywords:
good faith; grounds; injury; intention of parties;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2819
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Although the complainant's dignity has been seriously injured, and consistently injured over a period of three and a half years, he has suffered no financial loss and his claims for compensation and for moral damages are excessive. [...] The complainant will be adequately compensated by an award of moral damages in the amount of 25,000 euros. There will be an award of costs of these proceedings and the internal appeal proceedings in the amount of 5,000 euros."
Keywords:
amount; complainant; costs; injury; lack of injury; material injury; respect for dignity;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
