Clerical error (671,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Clerical error
Total judgments found: 6

• Judgment 4827

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him a repatriation grant upon his separation from service.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The clerical error contained in the MTHR helpdesk’s response, coupled with the typographical one in the administrative details, was subsequently corrected on 19 May 2020 and then on 10 August 2020, so there are no grounds for the complainant to claim rights from his communication with the MTHR helpdesk (see Judgments 4777, consideration 11, and 3693, consideration 18).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3693, 4777
  

  Keywords:

  clerical error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4777

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  [T]he reply submitted by ITU to the Appeal Board in the internal appeal procedure could not, in itself, be regarded as a decision. Furthermore, even if it did constitute a decision, in view of the preceding considerations, that decision would have stemmed from a purely factual error and so would not, in any event, have created any rights (see Judgments 3483, consideration 6, 2906, consideration 11, and 1111, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 2906, 3483
  

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; clerical error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4034

  
  126th Session, 2018
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant claims that she was subjected to harassment.

  Considerations 18, 19, 20

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant states that after the Bureau of Field Coordination was abolished, she was not notified of her exact assignment. [...]
  The Tribunal observes that the patently unacceptable situation in which the complainant and numerous other officials were placed reveals a management error by the Administration but does not constitute harassment. Under the case law, unsatisfactory conduct is not, in itself, sufficient to establish harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3625, under 9).
  It follows from the foregoing that the complainant has failed to show that she was a victim of harassment.
  However, although the alleged harassment has not been established, the Tribunal considers that the management error identified above placed the complainant in a difficult situation that caused her moral injury. The Organization must redress its breach of the duty to provide its employees with a safe and healthy working environment by the payment of damages, which the Tribunal sets at 10,000 euros.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3625
  

  Keywords:

  clerical error; harassment; moral injury;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4018

  
  126th Session, 2018
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  It is plain from the evidence in the file that the clause providing for the granting of the expatriation allowance to the complainant was deliberately included in the letter of appointment by the signatory parties and was not the result of a mere administrative error, as Eurocontrol now tries to argue.
  The complainant has produced an exchange of emails with the Head of the Engineering Division which unambiguously prove that his recruitment was preceded by negotiations precisely concerning the granting of the expatriation allowance and that the Eurocontrol Administration had agreed to grant him this benefit in order that his remuneration would remain similar to that which he had previously received in the private sector. [...]
  Similarly, Eurocontrol’s argument that the complainant’s letter of appointment did not explicitly refer to an agreement between the parties on this subject “notwithstanding the rules and regulations” does not mean that no such informal agreement existed, since it is hardly likely that an organisation would wish to draw attention in a contract to the unlawful nature of one of the clauses thereof.
  In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal will not accept the Organisation’s submission that the clause providing for the benefit in question was inserted into the complainant’s contract solely as a result of an accidental error in applying Article 4(1) of Rule of Application No. 7. In this connection, the Organisation explains that the Administration of the Maastricht Centre wrongly believed that the complainant’s services while he was placed at the disposal of Eurocontrol by private companies prior to his recruitment should be regarded as services for an international organisation within the meaning of Article 4(1), and that they were therefore not to be taken into account when determining whether he was entitled to receive the expatriation allowance. In view of the evidence on file, the Tribunal is of the opinion that, at best, the purpose of this somewhat surprising alleged misunderstanding was to contrive a reason for granting the complainant a benefit which the Organisation had purposefully decided to give him, in breach of the applicable text, in order to be able to offer him a level of remuneration which would persuade him to accept his appointment.

  Keywords:

  clerical error; contract; intention of parties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3693

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the EPO’s implied rejection of his internal appeals against the decision not to grant him the expatriation allowance retroactively and the decision to cease paying him the allowance.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  [W]here a decision stemmed from a clerical error, i.e. a purely factual error, and not from a genuine intention of its author, the Tribunal considers that that decision did not create rights for the person concerned. Where the decision is not consistent with its author’s intention, it is important that the impact of the decision should be limited as much as possible, even though its existence cannot be denied. A decision which is based on such a purely factual error could not create any rights. Accordingly, the competent authority is entitled to reverse it at any time as not doing so would possibly conflict not only with the interests of the organisation concerned but also with the principle of equal treatment of officials, insofar as it could, in some extreme cases, result in preposterous individual decisions reached by pure oversight becoming final.
  However, notwithstanding that a decision which is based on a purely factual error did not create any rights, it could be reversed only on certain conditions dictated by the principle of good faith. This principle requires, first, that the power to reverse a decision resting on a factual error must be exercised as soon as the competent authority notices the error in question and not at a later date chosen at its own convenience. Secondly, this principle requires that if the person who benefitted from the error has not contributed to it, she or he must not suffer any unfavourable consequences from the application of the decision in question during the period before it was reversed.

  Keywords:

  clerical error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3483

  
  120th Session, 2015
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision not to pay her a daily subsistence allowance during her appointment in Rome.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "[A]n administrative decision creates rights for the staff member and is binding upon the organization as soon as it is communicated to her or him. In that event, the decision may only be reversed or revoked if it is unlawful and has not yet become final. […] [W]here there is a genuine clerical or administrative error in such a decision, the decision does not create any rights for the staff member and the organization may reverse or revoke the decision subsequently."

  Keywords:

  clerical error;