Injury (46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Injury
Total judgments found: 186
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 34
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims material damages in an amount equal to two years’ salary, benefits, step increases, pension contributions, and all other entitlements and emoluments that she would have received had she not been wrongfully separated from service. This claim is not substantiated in the complainant’s proceedings be it in terms of years sought or of her expectations within the Organization. Given that any fixed-term contract the complainant ever held with IOM never exceeded one year and that the total length of her services with the Organization lasted approximately five years, the Tribunal considers that this claim is not justified and overstated in the circumstances.
An award of material damages in an amount equivalent to nine months’ salary, including benefits, entitlements and emoluments, represents a fair and reasonable compensation in the present case. IOM will be ordered to pay this amount to the complainant, plus interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2019, less any amounts she may have earned from other employment during that period of nine months beginning on 1 November 2019.
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; material damages; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 35
Extract:
The complainant also claims moral damages in an amount equal to no less than one year of her former gross salary and benefits. But the Tribunal’s case law states that in respect of damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and that she must provide evidence of the alleged injury (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). It suffices to note that in the present situation, notwithstanding this precedent, the complainant did not provide any specification of the moral injury she allegedly suffered nor evidence supporting its existence. This claim must consequently be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; moral damages; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the IAEA, pursuant to its duty of care, ought to have treated the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter as the initiation of a compensation claim for a work-related injury. Therefore, it follows that the complainant’s claim was timely submitted under Appendix D and should be considered by the JABCC.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In light of the foregoing, the complainant’s claim for compensation will be remitted to the IAEA for the JABCC to consider whether the complainant’s injury is attributable to the performance of official duties and whether he is entitled to the payment of medical expenses and compensation resulting from such injury pursuant to Appendix D.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; claim; compensation; illness; injury; remand; service-incurred;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he approach taken by the Director General in the impugned decision is problematic.
First, he erred in treating the complainant’s letter of 5 December 2019 as a letter merely “addressing return-to-work issues”. On the contrary, it is clear that in his 5 December 2019 letter the complainant intended to report his work-related accident to the IAEA and he did so about two months after the reported accident. This was within the four-month applicable time limit. In that letter, the complainant wrote: “Please accept this letter as written notice that on 4th of October 2019 I was involved in a work accident in my office”. The complainant also described the circumstances of his accident and the details of his treatment, and indicated that he might need further sick leave in the coming weeks. The letter was accompanied by a medical report of his status, diagnosis, and treatment. Interpreting a letter primarily focused on reporting a work-related accident, including by describing the circumstances thereof and attaching a medical report, solely as a sick leave request or a letter addressing return-to-work issues, overlooked its potential relevance to a compensation claim.
Second, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgment 4369, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In addition, if a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see Judgment 4006, consideration 13). Accordingly, an international organisation is under an obligation to clearly communicate to its staff members the appropriate procedures for submitting claims for compensation for service-incurred injuries or illnesses. This obligation is particularly important where procedural rules are unclear and could result in significant adverse consequences for staff members who are genuinely misguided on the procedures they must follow. As previously noted, Appendix D does not explicitly detail the procedural formalities for submitting a compensation claim for service-incurred injury or illness, such as its format or intended recipient. Therefore, the IAEA had a duty to provide procedural guidance to the complainant who was mistaken in the exercise of his right. Rather than penalizing him for procedural non-compliance, which at least in part stemmed from the lack of clarity in its own rules, the IAEA should have guided the complainant to follow the appropriate procedures.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the VIC Medical Service should have forwarded the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent body within the organisation. The necessity of forwarding to the competent body within the organization appeals addressed to the wrong body is articulated in Judgment 3034, consideration 15, as follows:
“[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).” (See also Judgment 4140, consideration 6.)
This case law equally applies to the present case concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred injury addressed to the wrong body. The duty to re-direct an incorrectly filed claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness to the competent body within the organization is an integral part of the duty of care incumbent upon organisations. It is intended to ensure that staff members are not deprived of their right to compensation for service-incurred injury or illness because of procedural missteps which can easily be remedied by re-directing compensation claims to the competent authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3034, 4006, 4369
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complaint allowed; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant contends that the impugned decision considered her misconduct as already proved and limited the scope of the new investigation. In addition, she contends that, even though the disciplinary measures, issued by the memorandum of 8 May 2018, no longer have a legal basis and have been suspended, she has not been reimbursed in full for the deductions from her salary applied from the date of the disciplinary decision until the date of the decision to suspend the disciplinary measures. The Tribunal finds that the impugned decision is potentially apt to immediately and adversely affect the complainant with regard to the alleged non-reimbursement of the salary deductions during the aforementioned period and the alleged improper limitation of the scope of the new investigation. In conclusion, the complaint is receivable and must be assessed on the merits. The Tribunal’s case law holds that the necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the complainant’s position (see Judgment 3337, consideration 7). This condition is met in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3337
Keywords:
cause of action; deduction; disciplinary measure; injury;
Judgment 4803
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests amendments made to the procedure for adjusting remuneration as reflected in his payslips.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[H]aving regard to the Appeals Committee’s findings, it is not inevitable, certain or even likely there will be future injury to the complainant. It remains the position generally that an abstract change of methodology of salary calculation or the calculation of other emoluments is challengeable when it is implemented or, exceptionally, when future injury is certain or likely. Thus, in Judgment 4075, recently reiterated in Judgments 4381, consideration 11, and 4380, consideration 8, for instance, the Tribunal concluded that the complaint was irreceivable as beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4380, 4381
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injury; salary;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 14
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for moral damages for the injury he suffered as a consequence of the alleged harassment and for the Global Fund’s refusal to take adequate action to follow up on his harassment complaint, the Tribunal notes two things. First, no award of moral damages can be made in the absence of a conclusive finding as to whether the alleged harassment actually took place or not. Second, the Global Fund actually did take action, and did so soon after the harassment complaint was submitted, by removing the complainant from the Chief Risk Officer’s supervision and by assigning him to a position under a different reporting line.
Keywords:
harassment; injury; moral damages;
Judgment 4669
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
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; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4668
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions 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 conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainants’ claims for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letters of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions 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 conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainants for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he complainants maintain [...] that the requests for redefinition of their employment relationships cannot be considered as time-barred because they are “actions involving compensation”, their sole purpose being “to obtain redress for the injury caused by the misuse of precarious contracts”, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to a time limit specified in WIPO’s rules. However, the Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the cases contrived, because in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of those decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their being set aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. The complainants’ reference to the case law on which they consider they can base this argument, which relates to different situations, is irrelevant in the present case. Furthermore, endorsing this argument – which would, once again, involve departing from the approach taken in [...] Judgments 4159 and 4160 – would have the effect of authorising the Organization’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the other judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
compensation; conversion of contract; injury; late appeal; redefinition of contract; time bar;
Judgment 4637
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s claim for compensation for the serious moral injury he allegedly suffered will not be granted. The Tribunal recalls that, with regard to damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and she or he must provide evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act adversely affecting her or him, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (for example, Judgments 4158, consideration 7, 4157, consideration 9, and 4156, considerations 5 and 6). In no event has evidence been provided of an unlawful act in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156, 4157, 4158
Keywords:
injury; moral injury;
Judgment 4618
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of two selection procedures in which she took part.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Whatever the eventual outcome of this dispute, the unlawful refusal to submit the complainant’s appeal to the Joint Appeals Committee has had the effect of delaying its final settlement. That decision has, in itself, caused the complainant injury that will be fairly redressed by ordering Interpol to pay her compensation [...].
Keywords:
injury; moral injury;
Judgment 4519
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] observes that a total of 15 months elapsed between the start of the complainant’s suspension, on 1 May 2020, and the end of the suspension, which in this case coincided with the date on which her dismissal took effect, namely 31 July 2021. That is an unreasonably long time. It not only grossly exceeded the aforementioned three-month period, but also disregarded the inherently short-term nature of such a suspension (see, for comparable cases, abovementioned Judgment 2698, consideration 14, or Judgment 3035, consideration 18). This duration, which can largely be explained by the likewise unusually slow disciplinary procedure, is all the more egregious in the present case because the complainant was deprived of any professional income from 10 November 2020, that is to say for most of the period in question.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2698, 3035
Keywords:
injury; suspension without pay;
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;
Judgment 4239
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for health reasons and claims that the compensation she received for her service-incurred injury is grossly inadequate.
Consideration 25
Extract:
One of its staff had been injured, as it turns out seriously, in a car accident while on a mission overseas when performing work for the Organization. WHO had an ongoing responsibility to do all it could to mitigate the effects of the accident as part of a more general obligation to protect the health and ensure the safety of its staff (see Judgment 3994, consideration 8). It is true that Dr H. asked the complainant to see her on her return and she did not. But that provides no real justification for WHO effectively doing nothing by way of further mitigating the effects of the accident. The complainant is entitled to moral damages for this breach of the duty of care.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994
Keywords:
duty of care; injury; mitigation of loss; moral injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 33
Extract:
The complainant says that in addition to the damages sought, the Tribunal should “recognize her future right to request compensation in the event of any deterioration of her health attributable to the service-incurred injury for any additional expenses resulting, without limitation, from any treatment, examination and in-house/nursing care”. She cites Judgment 2533, consideration 26, in which the Tribunal said “the defendant’s obligation to pay the complainant reasonable compensation for the results of his workplace injury is a continuing one”. If, and to what extent, such a claim of compensation might be justifiably made in the future and rejected is a matter of speculation though WHO’s future obligations are not, in all respects, resolved by this judgment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2533
Keywords:
damages; injury; service-incurred;
Judgment 4228
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for compensation for loss of earnings allegedly caused by a service-incurred injury.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The present complaint hinges primarily on a question of law: whether or not the complainant is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings under the FAO Manual Section 342 on Compensation for Death, Injury or Illness. The Tribunal is satisfied that the complainant is not entitled to compensation for loss of earnings; he is only entitled to the salary and allowances provided by his contract with the FAO plus the reimbursement of his medical expenses stemming from his service-incurred injury, which he received in full.
Keywords:
injury; loss of earnings; material damages; service-incurred;
Judgment 4227
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant seeks moral damages by reference to the time taken for the investigation process (over one and a half years) as well as the time taken to finalise the internal appeal process (over two and a half years). It may be accepted that both periods were extremely lengthy. However, the explicit basis for the damages is said to be “the enormous distress suffered by the complainant”. This is but an assertion not founded on any evidence of a causal connection and it is more likely that any distress suffered by the complainant over this time arose not because of the length of time the steps took but rather from the fact that the defendant organization was consistently satisfied at several levels of decision-making and review that the decision to dismiss the complainant for serious misconduct was justified.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; injury; inquiry; investigation; moral injury;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant argues in his brief that “the duration of the investigation process went far beyond a reasonable time to guarantee due process”. In its reply the defendant organization makes the point that the complainant does not specify how the duration of the investigation allegedly impacted upon his due process rights. The complainant does not, in his rejoinder, provide those particulars. It is by no means obvious that the time taken, which was lengthy, affected the complainant’s capacity to defend the charges or otherwise prejudiced his position. This contention should be rejected.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; due process; injury; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4218
129th Session, 2020
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The fourth argument is that there had been a violation of the requirement for transparency. The only point of substance raised on this topic is that the complainant was not provided with copies of certain documents before the CRJAC. Copies of those documents have been provided by the defendant organization in its reply. They should have been provided to the complainant at the time they were provided to the CRJAC (see, for example, Judgment 2588, consideration 7). However, in her rejoinder, the complainant failed to demonstrate in any material way that either the failure to provide them at the time or their content tainted the decision-making process leading to the ultimate decision impugned in these proceedings not to renew her contract and thus failed to prove she suffered prejudice (see Judgment 3377, consideration 16). In these circumstances no moral damages should be awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2588, 3377
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; injury; moral injury;
Judgment 4178
128th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a promotion in the 2014 professional promotion exercise.
Consideration 14
Extract:
As was stated in Judgment 3353, consideration 26, “[a]n organisation must care for the dignity of its staff members and not cause them unnecessary personal distress and disappointment where this could be avoided”. Although the Administration remedied the error itself, as a result of the breach of the provision and the unnecessary communication to the complainant, undoubtedly, the complainant was deeply disappointed by his non-promotion and understandably distressed not knowing for an inordinate amount of time about what had led to him not being promoted for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3353
Keywords:
injury; moral injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4158
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant submits that WIPO has not fully compensated her for the injury that she suffered as a result of being subjected to harassment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
With regard to damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and she or he must provide evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see Judgments 3778, consideration 4, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3778
Keywords:
burden of proof; injury; moral injury;
Judgment 4060
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.
Consideration 29
Extract:
[A] review of the chronology [...] shows that the Administration failed to provide the complainant with relevant information in a timely manner. This led to unnecessary delays in the resolution of the complainant’s case, misunderstandings, and was an affront to the complainant’s dignity. This ongoing failure to provide the complainant with the information which he was entitled to receive is exacerbated by the fact that the ICC has not advanced any reasons for withholding the information. The complainant is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros and costs in the amount of 6,000 euros.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; injury; moral injury; respect for dignity;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
