Moral injury (50,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Moral injury
Total judgments found: 419
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 | next >
Judgment 4428
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of her request to combine a half day of absence for strike participation with a half day of leave.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages for the unlawfulness of the impugned decision, which amounted to a deliberate violation of the exercise of her right to strike, and the negative effects of this decision, including unequal treatment. The Tribunal assesses these damages in the amount of 5,000 euros.
Keywords:
moral injury; right to strike; strike; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 14
Extract:
Given the unlawfulness of the decision to transfer the complainant to the examiner’s post in October 2008 and his evidence of the injury (the humiliation and loss of status) which the transfer decision caused him, he is entitled to moral damages for which he will be awarded 50,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
moral injury; transfer;
Judgment 4425
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her request for reimbursement of the cost of her spa cure as a type A cure undergone for “absolute medical necessity”.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages not based on delay, the case law states that the complainant bears the burden of proof and must provide evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury. The case law further states that the mere fact a decision was initially flawed does not suffice to warrant awarding damages for moral injury and, to be entitled to moral damages, an official must have suffered more severe injury than that which an improper decision ordinarily causes (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). The complainant provides no evidence to show that she has suffered more severe injury than that which an improper decision ordinarily caused her. Her claim for moral damages for the delay in the internal appeal process is however well founded, as a period of almost four years from the filing of the request for review to the issuing of the impugned decision is too long and, additionally, the complainant has provided evidence of the injury (the stress) which that delay caused her. She will therefore be awarded the amount of 2,500 euros in moral damages for the delay in the internal appeal process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[The] claims for moral damages for delay in the internal appeal procedures are also unfounded. Although the period of about four and a half years from the lodging of the requests for review to the issuance of the impugned decisions is too long in the present circumstances, the complainants have not articulated the effect caused by the delay (see, for example, Judgment 3582, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The FAO’s failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the selection report, which it disclosed to the Appeals Committee, violated the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, impeded her right of appeal and inhibited her ability to fully argue her case before the Appeals Committee in full knowledge of all facts of the case. It thereby tainted the internal appeal procedure, rather than the selection process as the complainant seems to suggest. This procedural irregularity is therefore not a basis for cancelling the selection process as the complainant requests. However, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it rejected the Appeals Committee’s recommendation to immediately disclose a redacted copy of the selection report to the complainant and to award her adequate moral damages for the breach of procedural fairness (due process).
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4411
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment as a result of the abolition of her post.
Consideration 22
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 3613, consideration 46, “[i]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that ‘international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members’ (Judgment 2861, under 91; see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371, 2475 and 2720)”. Based on the nature of the content of the complainant’s communications with the Administration subsequent to her receipt of the email of 8 May 2017, it is clear that the unexpected notification of the abolition of her post and the termination of her appointment was a serious affront to the complainant’s dignity and caused her significant personal harm, for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475, 2720, 2861, 3613
Keywords:
abolition of post; moral injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4407
132nd Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award her moral damages higher than 20,000 Swiss francs for the moral injury she alleges to have suffered as a result of the personal prejudice and bias she endured during her probation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
bias; complaint dismissed; moral injury; probationary period;
Judgment 4405
132nd Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and terminate her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Plainly, the unlawfulness of the abolition of the complainant’s position and the subsequent termination of her appointment caused her moral injury. That injury was, in this case, compounded by the complainant’s distressing situation following her separation from service, which took place while she was receiving extensive medical treatment of which the ICC had been informed. It was also compounded by the fact that the Court, which has itself acknowledged that it failed in its duty of care in this respect, did not make every effort to “explore with the complainant other employment options before prior to [her] separation”.
Keywords:
duty of care; moral injury;
Judgment 4401
132nd Session, 2021
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her application for the reimbursement of medical expenses.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that the slow handling of her internal complaint caused her medical and psychological harm.
Under Article 35(2) of Rule of Application No. 10, “[b]efore taking a decision regarding a complaint submitted under Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations [...], the Director General shall request the opinion of the Management Committee. The Management Committee may instruct its Chairman to make further investigations. Where the point at issue is of a medical nature, the Management Committee may seek expert medical advice before giving its opinion. The cost of the expert opinion shall be borne by the Agency’s Sickness Insurance Scheme. The Management Committee must give its opinion within two months of the request being received. The opinion shall be transmitted simultaneously to the Director General and to the person concerned.”
Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Director General is to notify the person concerned of her or his reasoned decision within four months from the date on which the internal complaint was lodged.
In this case, on 19 January 2017 the complainant lodged an internal complaint with the Director General against the decision of 15 December 2016 informing her of the refusal to cover the costs of the acupuncture sessions because the treatment had not been carried out by a doctor. The impugned decision was taken on 7 November 2017, more than ten months later.
The Tribunal notes that the Organisation had four months from the date when the internal complaint was filed to take a decision on it. It breached its own rules by exceeding this period by six months. However, in her submissions, the complainant does not establish that any particular injury arose from that breach. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to award her compensation under this head (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396
Keywords:
injury; moral injury; time limit;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant alleges that moral injury was caused by the Organisation’s breach of its duty of care. However, a refusal to reimburse expenses based on the rules in force, even if it results from an error in their application, cannot be regarded as a breach of the duty of care. This argument will therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
duty of care; moral injury;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant’s request for moral damages for breach of duty of care will [...] be rejected, as will his request for moral damages for the length of the procedures deliberately delayed by the EPO and the harm caused to his health and dignity. While it is true that this procedure, which spanned almost six years for reasons mostly attributable to the EPO, was unreasonably long, the Tribunal considers that this excessively long period did not in itself cause serious injury to the complainant (see Judgment 4222, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4222
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4390
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for alleged delays in the processing of his request to transfer previously acquired pension rights to the EPO’s pension scheme.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Appeals Committee correctly concluded that although the Office could have dealt with the request more speedily the complainant did not substantiate the effect which the delay had upon him and the consequential damages to which he was entitled (see, for example, Judgments 4031, consideration 8, and 4231, consideration 15). Having analysed the relevant time periods and the evidence presented by the complainant, with reference to Judgment 2608, consideration 11, the Appeals Committee had correctly found that there was no undue delay that caused material damage to the complainant and that, moreover, he did not suffer financial loss in the transfer value of his pension rights. This claim for damages is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2608, 4031, 4231
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4341
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for the position of General Counsel.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant’s right of appeal has been materially compromised by the course adopted by the Board and the President. He is entitled to moral damages in the sum of 5,000 United States dollars. IFAD argues this claim for moral damages is irreceivable, as internal means of redress have not been exhausted. But it is a claim arising immediately and directly from the internal appeal process itself and is receivable in the Tribunal.
Keywords:
moral injury;
Judgment 4316
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of fixed “bridging days” to balance the number of public holidays at the different places of employment.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[T]he claims for moral damages will be rejected as the complainants have not convincingly articulated the adverse effects of the delay.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4310
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The unlawfulness of the procedure which led to the complainant’s summary dismissal and its excessive length caused moral injury to the complainant, who was suspended without salary and remained uncertain as to his professional situation for an unacceptably long time.
Keywords:
moral injury; summary dismissal; suspension;
Judgment 4306
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the effective date which has been set for the retroactive reclassification of her post and the undue delay in the reclassification procedure.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[The complainant] provides no evidence of emotional distress or of any other injury or loss suffered. The case law, for example in consideration 5 of Judgment 4156, requires a complainant to provide evidence of the injury suffered as a result of alleged unlawful acts. In the premises, the Tribunal finds that the complainant is not entitled to an award of moral damages [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4304
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General to cancel the “Falls Below Expectations” overall rating in her 2014 performance appraisal report and to restore her entitlements as in the case of satisfactory performance, but not to award her damages or costs.
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
It is well established in the case law that “[a] staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organization to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organization must ‘conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed’” (see Judgment 2414, consideration 23).
The complainant submits, in effect, that the “No rating” assessment for her 2014 PMDS report was unlawful. The “No rating” assigned to her corrected PMDS report does not satisfy the Organization’s duty to provide a properly rated PMDS report. Considering the complainant’s separation from service for health reasons and the passage of time, the Tribunal will not send the case back for a new rating, but will consider this element in the award of damages.
As Mr L.S. did not inform the complainant orally or in writing of the performance issues identified in the email of 3 February 2015, she could not take any steps to remedy the issue(s) and improve her performance appraisal. This constitutes a breach of WHO’s duty to act in good faith towards the complainant and to respect her dignity for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170, 2414
Keywords:
moral injury; performance evaluation;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The consistent case law has it that “[t]he amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal” (see Judgment 4100, consideration 7, and the cases cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100
Keywords:
delay; moral injury;
Judgment 4303
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant [...] appears to argue that the amount awarded by way of moral damages was inadequate, though she contests the notion that it is merely a question of amount and submits that it involves, additionally, recognition of “lifelong harm done”. But the relief the Tribunal can provide is confined to “compensation for injury” in accordance with the terms of Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; moral injury;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant challenges the actual amount awarded by the Organization. While due regard should be paid to the assessment made by the HBA and adopted by the Director-General, an award of 8,000 dollars does not appear to the Tribunal to be, in all the circumstances, adequate compensation for the unlawful abolition of the complainant’s post. The abolition of the post was not for legitimate reasons and had the effect of removing the complainant from the field of expertise she had developed over several decades. It can be inferred that the sense of hurt and resentment she experienced was considerable.
Keywords:
moral injury;
Judgment 4299
130th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his claim for moral damages for harassment.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[T]here is a material difference between an official alleging she or he had been harassed in the context of alleging misconduct, on the one hand, and an official alleging she or he had been harassed in the context of seeking protection from the harassment, on the other. In the latter situation, the organization’s primary obligation is to investigate whether there has been harassment and, if satisfied that there has been, take steps to prevent any further harassment. This obligation is part of a more general obligation to ensure that officials work in a safe working environment free from physical and psychological risk (see, for example, Judgment 4171, consideration 11). Those steps might include counselling the perpetrators of the harassment or relocating the staff member the subject of the harassment to another workplace or even another position.
It is true that a staff member who has, in the latter situation just discussed, established she or he has been harassed may also be entitled to an award of moral damages by the organization for the harassment (see, for example, Judgment 4158, consideration 3). Whether there is such an entitlement may depend on the terms of the regime in place within the organization to deal with harassment grievances. It is certainly something that can be awarded in proceedings in the Tribunal (see Judgment 4241, considerations 24 and 25). However, what is important is that, even if moral damages might be awarded, that is a subsidiary remedy or relief available in cases of this type when harassment is established. As just discussed, the primary obligation of the organization if harassment is proved is to protect the complainant and prevent further harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4158, 4171, 4241
Keywords:
harassment; moral injury;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 19
Extract:
In light of the [...] findings, the Tribunal would in principle set aside the impugned decision and remit the matter to the organization concerned. However, in view of the effluxion of time that course of action would be impracticable. The complainant is no longer a staff member of WIPO and the result of her harassment complaint is yet to be determined. The Tribunal concludes that the complainant suffered moral injury [...].
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; moral injury;
Judgment 4284
130th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to find that UNESCO has failed to execute Judgment 3936 and to order the Organization to review her case.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]lthough the application for execution has become moot, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to award 7,000 euros in moral damages to the complainant, who had to wait more than 24 months for a new decision, which she received only after reminding the Organization and lodging an application for execution [...] with the Tribunal.
Keywords:
delay; execution of judgment; moral injury;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 | next >
|
