These judgments concern the adjustment of salaries/pensions: 

• No.s 4-7 of the Administrative Tribunal, 16 December 1993 (PDF, 111kb) - The applicants challenged the method of calculating the new salary scales for B and C grade staff in which account was taken of the contributions paid by French employees for unemployment insurance.
  

• Nos. 24-25: 25 June 1997 (PDF, 117kb) - The applicants alleged that the Council Decision postponing the adjustment of salaries/pensions on the grounds of “exceptional budgetary constraints” in the Organisation was illegal.
   

• No. 50: 8 March 2001 (PDF, 168kb) - The applicant, a pensioner, challenged the application of the “affordability” clause to the adjustment of his pension. 
   

• No. 66: 12 April 2010 (PDF, 275kb) - The applicant challenged the decision of the Joint Pensions Administrative Section to reduce the household allowance of his OECD pension on the ground that he was also receiving a pension, including household allowance, from the Council of Europe Bank.
   

• No. 94: 30 June 2021 (PDF, 358kb) - The Applicants request both the annulment of the decision by the Secretary-General to implement the amendment of Article 36 of the Co-ordinated Pension Scheme Rules and the application of an identical adjustment to pensions and salaries retroactively to 1 January 2020. In the alternative, the Applicants seek as well the payment of a lump sum and of an amount as a result of these proceedings. 
   

• No. 95: 30 June 2021 (PDF, 287kb) - The Applicants request the annulment of the decision by the Secretary-General to seek the repayment of the tax adjustment, provided for in Article 42 of the Co-ordinated Pension Scheme Rules (CPSR) and of the Rules of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) which was paid to them for the year 2018. In the alternative, the Applicants seek as well the payment of a lump sum and of an amount as a result of these proceedings. 
   

• No. 96: 30 June 2021 (PDF, 283kb) - The Applicants request that their January 2020 payslips be cancelled and that the Tribunal order new payslips to be issued that do not reflect the decision of the Council of the Organisation of 14 November 2019 to apply to retired officials the amendment to Article 36 of the Co-ordinated Pension Scheme Rules (CPSR). In the alternative, the Applicants seek the payment of a lump sum corresponding to the financial damage incurred, a compensation for the moral damages incurred and an amount as a result of these proceedings.  

These judgments concern appeal for rectification, revision or interpretation:

• Case No. 10 of the Administrative Tribunal, 9 May 1994 (PDF, 99kb) - The applicant filed an appeal for rectification in respect of the Judgment in case No. 8 which did not address the request for reimbursement of costs.
   

• Case No. 12 of the Administrative Tribunal, 9 May 1994 (PDF, 108kb) - The applicant filed an appeal for rectification in respect of the Judgment in cases Nos. 4-7. This gave rise to a counter-claim from the defendants who asked for interest for late payment on the sums due under that Judgment.
   

• No. 42: 15 October 1999 (PDF, 222kb) - The applicant filed an appeal for interpretation of the term “salary” for the purposes of executing the Tribunal’s judgment in Case No. 37.
   

• No. 71: 28 March 2012 (PDF, 113kb) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 67– challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to prevent her from accessing the Joint Advisory Board given her former position of Deputy Secretary-General. 
   

• No. 104: 9 August 2022 (PDF, 253kb) - The applicant – the same as in case 99 – alleging an appeal for rectification, for revision or for interpretation, requests a compensation in reparation of damages for an act of negligence and moral prejudice suffered.  

These judgments concern compensation:

• No. 22: 25 June 1997 (PDF, 65kb) - The applicant alleged that the Organisation had mismanaged the Provident Fund. The Tribunal had first of all to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case.
   

• No. 37: 9 December 1998 (PDF, 150kb) - The Secretary-General decided not to reinstate the applicant following the Tribunal’s judgment in Case No. 32, and asked the Tribunal to fix instead an amount of compensation. The Tribunal also determined the modalities of payment.
   

• No. 39: 21 June 1999 (PDF, 158kb) - The Tribunal had to decide on the rules applicable and procedure to be followed in a request for compensation for prejudice suffered by reason of an occupational disease (alleged exposure to asbestos).
   

• No. 42: 15 October 1999 (PDF, 222kb) - The applicant filed an appeal for interpretation of the term “salary” for the purposes of executing the Tribunal’s judgment in Case No. 37.
   

• Nos. 43-46: 16 March 2000 (PDF, 181kb) - Four officials of the International Energy Agency challenged the refusal of their applications to benefit from the Special Departure and Renewal Programme.
   

• No. 57: 2 December 2004 (PDF, 170kb) - The applicant challenged the decision by the Secretary-General not to withdraw or modify the decision of the Governing Board of the IEA refusing to compensate the applicant for loss of national pension income. The Tribunal discussed its jurisdiction in relation to the principal and subsidiary claims submitted by the applicant.
   

• No. 63: 24 February 2009 (PDF, 238kb) - The applicant asked for compensation for the prejudice she claimed to have suffered as a result of harassment and of decisions refusing her requests for promotion. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
   

• No. 68: 15 March 2011 (PDF, 232kb) - The applicant, whose fixed-term appointment came to an end while her health condition resulting from a work-accident was not settled,  asks the Tribunal  to annul the decision of the Secretary-General rejecting her request for renewal of her appointment and to grant her payment of her salary for the period comprised between the end of her contract and the date of consolidation of her state of health. She also claims damages on the basis of the financial, physical and moral injuries caused.
   

• No. 70: 26 March 2012 (PDF, 221kb) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 68 – claims damage, in addition to the indemnities already received in respect of injuries following a work accident, on the basis of the financial, physical and moral injuries caused by the Organisation whose negligence would have prevented the applicant from rapid recovery.  
   

• No. 72: 6 May 2013 (PDF, 225kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to reassign her to a position of the same category and grade as the previous one without following the established procedure, pretending that her previous post had been suppressed beforehand 
   

• No. 91: 1st February 2019 (PDF, 322kb) - The Applicant – the same as in Case No. 73 - asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General to terminate his appointment and requests his reinstatement within the OECD and a compensation in reparation of moral prejudice suffered ; or failing his reinstatement, a compensation of 4 years salary in addition to one year salary as moral damages, including pension entitlements. The Applicant seeks as well monetary compensation in reimbursement of the cost incurred in the proceedings. This application follows the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of 7 February 2014. 

• No. 99: 8 November 2021 (PDF, 236kb) - The applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretray-General refusing her additional compensation, following an accident recognised as a work accident. 

These judgements relate to Contribution:

• No. 84: 23 April 2018 (PDF, 219kb) - The Applicant asks the Tribunal to annul the decision of the SG considering the Applicant’s failure to reply  to a questionnaire concerning the management of the Organisation’s medical insurance as a request to maintain his membership of the global medical and social system subject to the payment of a contribution. He requests a monetary compensation in reimbursement of the costs incurred in the proceedings.  
   

• No. 85 & 88: 23 April 2018 (PDF, 374kb) - The Applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General maintaining her membership of the global medical and social system with a raised contribution rate.She requests monetary compensation in reimbursement of the costs incurred in the proceedings. 
   

• No. 86 & 89: 23 April 2018 (PDF, 382kb) - The Applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General maintaining his membership of the global medical and social system with a raised contribution rate. He requests that he not be subject to the increase in the contribution rate and monetary compensation in reimbursement of the costs incurred in the proceedings. 
   

• No. 105: 20 October 2022 (PDF, 254kb) - The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision arising from the silence of any reply from the Secretary-General fir the withdrawal of a declaration of claim made by the Organisation.

These judgments concern discpline:

• No. 13: 22 December 1994 (PDF, 114kb) - The applicant requested the removal from her personal file of documents criticising her behaviour and forming part of a formal disciplinary action.
   

• No. 29: 27 March 1998 (PDF, 170kb) - The applicant, who had been suspended first with, then without pay, challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the adversarial principle had been breached. 
   

• No. 47: 16 June 2000 (PDF, 143kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to suspend her on salary pending completion of a disciplinary action for a service-connected fault. 
   

• No. 51: 21 December 2001 (PDF, 103kb) - The applicant decided not to seek renewal of his contract because the Secretary-General refused to withdraw a letter reprimanding him for his professional conduct, a letter to which wide publicity had been given. He then asked the Tribunal to consider his resignation as equivalent to unfair dismissal. 
   

• No. 53: 18 April 2002 (PDF, 167kb) - The applicant, who had refused to take up duty in the post to which she was transferred, challenged the resulting decision to dismiss her. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of some of the submissions. 
   

• No. 58: 7 April 2005 (PDF, 137kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to suspend him with pay pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. 
   

• No. 59: 17 March 2005 (PDF, 80kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to issue him with a warning following an altercation on the Organisation’s premises between the applicant and an employee of an outside firm. 
   

• No. 61: 7 March 2006 (PDF, 267kb) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 58 - challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to dismiss him for misconduct. The Tribunal also had to assess the amount of damages flowing from the Judgment in Case No. 58.

These judgments concern expatriation allowance:

• Judgment in Case No. 1 of the Administrative Tribunal, 6 July 1992 (PDF, 107kb) - The applicant asked the Tribunal to award compensation for withdrawal of the expatriation allowance which had been allocated on the basis of an express agreement.

• Case No. 17 of the Administrative Tribunal, 9 February 1996 (PDF, 109kb) - The applicant requested payment of the expatriation allowance based on an alleged “continuous residence” outside France for the requisite number of years prior to her appointment.

• No. 23: 25 June 1997 (PDF, 62kb) - The applicant challenged the refusal to grant her the expatriation allowance based on her length of residence in France at the date of her current (not first) appointment.

• No. 27: 15 December 1997 (PDF, 157kb) - The applicant, basing her argument on the definition of “residence”, challenged the Organisation’s refusal to grant her the expatriation allowance. 

• No. 93: 26 October 2020 (PDF, 237kb) - The applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretray-General refusing her the benefit of family allowances and the expatriation allowance, and that a payment be made for the amount she should have perceived. The Applicant seeks as well these allowances to be granted and the payment of an amount as a result of these proceedings.  

These judgements concern harassment:

• No. 81: 17 March 2016 (PDF, 357kb) - The Applicant contests the decision by which the Secretary-General rejected her request to recognise that she had been a victim of personal harassment. She requests a compensation in reparation of damages and moral prejudice suffered.  
   

• No. 100: 26 April 2022 (PDF, 348kb) - The applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General to follow the opinion of the OECD Joint Advisory Board, confirming the challenged decision concerning the claims of sexual harassment, abuse of power and inappropriate managerial behaviour. The applicant seeks as well compensations for moral and material damages and the payment of an amount as a result of these proceedings. 

These judgments concern household allowance:

• No. 66: 12 April 2010 (PDF, 275kb) - The applicant challenged the reduction of the household allowance of his OECD pension on the ground that he was also receiving a pension, including household allowance, from the Council of Europe Bank. 
   

• No. 93: 26 October 2020 (PDF, 237kb) - The applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretray-General refusing her the benefit of family allowances and the expatriation allowance, and that a payment be made for the amount she should have perceived. The Applicant seeks as well these allowances to be granted and the payment of an amount as a result of these proceedings.  

These judgments concern invalidity:

• No. 18: 10 February 2007 (PDF, 117kb) - The applicant requested a capital sum in addition to an invalidity pension and asked for a new meeting of the Invalidity Board to be held in conditions guaranteeing compliance with the principles of law applicable.
   

• No. 21: 25 June 1997 (PDF, 109kb) - The applicant, whose post had been suppressed and who was offered an invalidity pension, no causal link between the two having been established, asked for a letter of apology and for compensation for moral prejudice.
   

• No. 35: 21 June 1999 (PDF, 212kb) - In a case involving occupational exposure to asbestos, the Tribunal had to decide which rules were applicable and whether the Organisation was guilty of intentional or inexcusable negligence.
   

• No. 36: 21 June 1999 (PDF, 176kb) - The applicant asked for compensation for the moral prejudice he claimed to have suffered by reason of his apprehension about the presence of asbestos in the Organisation’s premises.
   

• No. 38: 21 June 1999 (PDF, 193kb) - Given the doubt arising from the opinion of the Medical Board about whether the applicant, who had been occupationally exposed to asbestos, was entitled to an invalidity pension, the Tribunal ordered a new expert appraisal.
   

• No. 38 (continuation): 14 March 2000 (PDF, 152kb) - Following the new expert appraisal ordered by the Tribunal in Case No. 38, the Tribunal had to decide whether the applicant met the conditions of entitlement to an invalidity pension.
   

• No. 63: 24 February 2009 (PDF, 238kb) - The applicant asked for compensation for the prejudice she claimed to have suffered as a result of harassment and of decisions refusing her requests for promotion. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.

These judgments concern irregular procedure:

• No. 19: 10 February 2007 (PDF, 109kb) - An unsuccessful candidate for promotion challenged the regularity of the procedure followed before the Joint Advisory Board on the ground that the Secretary-General had refused to communicate to it the opinion of the selection panel.
   

• No. 20: 25 June 2007 (PDF, 109kb) - The applicant challenged the termination of his appointment following suppression of his post, alleging prejudice arising from delays in establishing his performance appraisal reports.
   

• No. 21: 25 June 2007 (PDF, 109kb) - The applicant, whose post had been suppressed and who was offered an invalidity pension, no causal link between the two having been established, asked for a letter of apology and for compensation for moral prejudice.
   

• No. 29: 27 March 1998 (PDF, 170kb) - The applicant, who had been suspended first with, then without pay, challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the adversarial principle had been breached.
   

• No. 33: 9 December 1998 (PDF, 157kb) - The applicant, alleging procedural irregularities, asked the Tribunal to annul the decision to terminate his appointment following suppression of his post and after an unsuccessful probationary period in another post.
   

• No. 34: 18 March 1999 (PDF, 149kb) - The applicant, whose post had been suppressed, alleged that he had suffered prejudice as a result of a letter sent by a senior OECD official to the German Delegation to the OECD wondering about the objectivity of a report the applicant had been commissioned to prepare for the German Finance Ministry.
   

• No. 53: 18 April 2002 (PDF, 167kb) - The applicant, who had refused to take up duty in the post to which she was transferred, challenged the resulting decision to dismiss her. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of some of the submissions.
   

• No. 58: 7 April 2005 (PDF, 137kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to suspend him with pay pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.
   

• No. 65: 28 May 2009 (PDF, 268kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to take any further action on her complaint of having been subjected to harassment by several of her colleagues.
   

• No. 72: 6 May 2013 (PDF, 225kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to reassign her to a position of the same category and grade as the previous one without following the established procedure, pretending that her previous post had been suppressed beforehand.
   

• No. 76 : 14 November 2014 (PDF, 206kb) – The Applicant asks the Tribunal to annul the implicit decision of non-renewal of her contract as a Temporary Staff Member. She requests her reinstatement and the payment of compensatory damages.
   

• No. 82: 21 May 2017 (PDF, 259kb) - The applicant – the same as in Cases No. 72 and No 79 – alleging irregular procedures, challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to recognise the occupational nature of her illness. This request follows the decision of the Tribunal of 7 August 2015, which had found that the findings of the medical board were vitiated by an obvious material error and ordered that the question be ruled on again.
   

• No. 83: 21 May 2017 (PDF, 268kb) - The applicant, alleging procedural irregularities, challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to recognise the occupational nature of her illness and requests a compensation in reparation of damages and moral prejudice suffered. 
  
  
• No. 97: 8 November 2021 (PDF, 234kb) -  The applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretray-General refusing his request to convene the OECD Joint Advisory Board. The applicant seeks as well a compensation for moral damages and the payment of an amount as a result of these proceedings. 
   

• No. 98: 8 November 2021 (PDF, 213kb) - The applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretray-General refusing his request to convene the OECD Joint Advisory Board. The applicant seeks as well a compensation for moral damages and the payment of an amount as a result of these proceedings.

These judgments concern jurisdictional immunity:

• No. 60: 7 March 2006 (PDF, 102kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s invocation of jurisdictional immunity for three officials against whom the applicant had brought criminal proceedings in the French courts. The Tribunal discussed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application. 
   

• No. 69: 24 March 2011 (PDF, 236kb) - Having unsuccessfully challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to renew her consultancy appointment before French courts, the applicant asks the Tribunal to make use of Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing it, “in exceptional cases”, to declare admissible an application filed after expiry of the time limit. She also claims the payment of various sums to compensate her for the prejudice resulting from the end of her appointment. 
   

• No. 103: 11 octobre 2022 (PDF, 235kb) - The Applicant asks for the annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General rejecting his request for the withdrawal of a decision concluding that, in absence of a contractual relationship with the Applicant, the Organisation cannot be held responsible for decisions taken by a subcontracting company.

These judgements concern material error:

No. 79: 7 August 2015 ( PDF, 262 Ko) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 72 – challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to recognise the occupational nature of her illness. She requested her reinstatement and claimed damages on the basis of the moral injuries caused.

These judgements relate to Medical and social system:

• No. 84: 23 avril 2018 (PDF, 219kb) - The Applicant asks the Tribunal to annul the decision of the SG considering the Applicant’s failure to reply  to a questionnaire concerning the management of the Organisation’s medical insurance as a request to maintain his membership of the global medical and social system subject to the payment of a contribution. He requests a monetary compensation in reimbursement of the costs incurred in the proceedings.  
   

• No. 85 & 88: 23 avril 2018 (PDF, 374kb) - The Applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General maintaining her membership of the global medical and social system with a raised contribution rate.She requests monetary compensation in reimbursement of the costs incurred in the proceedings. 
   

• No. 86 & 89: 23 avril 2018 (PDF, 382kb) - The Applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General maintaining his membership of the global medical and social system with a raised contribution rate. He requests that he not be subject to the increase in the contribution rate and monetary compensation in reimbursement of the costs incurred in the proceedings. 
   

• No. 90: 3 October 2018 (PDF, 566kb) - The Applicant asks the Administrative tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General refusing her full coverage of living-in carer expenses. She requests the reimbursement of the sums due for live-in care services and she seeks monetary compensation for moral damages and for the costs incurred in the proceedings.  
   

• No. 92: 20 April 2020 (PDF, 298kb) - The Applicants, executors, ask the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General refusing the full coverage of medical fees and home assistance. The applicants request the decision to be annulled and the reimbursement of the sums due. 

These judgments concern non-renewal of contract:

• No. 30: 27 March 1998 (PDF, 168kb) - The applicant challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on his behaviour.

• No. 55: 6 June 2002 (PDF, 141kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision that in view of the applicant’s style of management, it was not in the Organisation’s interest to renew his contract.
   

• No. 64: 24 February 2009 (PDF, 213kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to renew his contract because of a reorganisation of the applicant’s Service and of doubts about his administrative skills. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
   

• No. 67: 23 March 2010 (PDF, 212kb) - The applicant alleged that the decision not to renew her contract was tainted by discrimination based on the state of her health.  The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
   

• No. 68: 15 March 2011 (PDF, 232kb) - The applicant, whose fixed-term appointment came to an end while her health condition resulting from a work-accident was not settled,  asks the Tribunal  to annul the decision of the Secretary-General rejecting her request for renewal of her appointment and to grant her payment of her salary for the period comprised between the end of her contract and the date of consolidation of her state of health. She also claims damages on the basis of the financial, physical and moral injuries caused.
   

• No. 69: 24 March 2011 (PDF, 236kb) - Having unsuccessfully challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to renew her consultancy appointment before French courts, the applicant asks the Tribunal to make use of Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing it, “in exceptional cases”, to declare admissible an application filed after expiry of the time limit. She also claims the payment of various sums to compensate her for the prejudice resulting from the end of her appointment.
   

• No. 73: 7 February 2014 (PDF, 232kb) - The Applicant contest the decision of the Secretary-General to terminate his appointment and to not grant him an open-ended contract after more than fifteen years at the service of the Organisation. He requests his reinstatement within the OECD with an open-ended contract or failing that the payment of the equivalent of four years of salary including pension entitlements.
   

• No. 76 : 14 November 2014 (PDF, 206kb) – The Applicant asks the Tribunal to annul the implicit decision of non-renewal of her contract as a Temporary Staff Member. She requests her reinstatement and the payment of compensatory damages. 
   

• No. 106: 9 January 2024 (PDF, 314kb) - The Applicant requests that the decision not to convert his appointment to an open-ended contract be annulled. He requests a compensation for the prejudice suffered a amount as a result of these proceedings. 

These judgments concern occupational illness:

• No. 79: 7 August 2015 (PDF, 262 Ko) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 72 – challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to recognise the occupational nature of her illness. She requested her reinstatement and claimed damages on the basis of the moral injuries caused.
   

• No. 82: 21 May 2017 (PDF, 259kb) - The applicant – the same as in Cases No. 72 and No 79 – alleging irregular procedures, challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to recognise the occupational nature of her illness. This request follows the decision of the Tribunal of 7 August 2015, which had found that the findings of the medical board were vitiated by an obvious material error and ordered that the question be ruled on again.
   

• No. 83: 21 May 2017 (PDF, 268kb) - The applicant, alleging procedural irregularities, challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to recognise the occupational nature of her illness and requests a compensation in reparation of damages and moral prejudice suffered.

These judgments concern resignation:

• Case No. 9 of the Administrative Tribunal, 9 May 1994 (PDF, 109kb) - The applicant, who had taken early retirement, asked for compensation for an administrative error concerning payment of an indemnity corresponding to the period of notice.
   

• No. 31: 18 June 1998 (PDF, 164kb) - Following an altercation between colleagues outside work premises, the applicant resigned, alleging that the Organisation had failed in its duty of protection and requesting compensation for material and moral prejudice.
   

• Nos. 43-46: 16 March 2000 (PDF, 181kb) - Four officials of the International Energy Agency challenged the refusal of their applications to benefit from the Special Departure and Renewal Programme.
   

• No. 51: 21 December 2001 (PDF, 103kb) - The applicant decided not to seek renewal of his contract because the Secretary-General refused to withdraw a letter reprimanding him for his professional conduct, a letter to which wide publicity had been given. He then asked the Tribunal to consider his resignation as equivalent to unfair dismissal.

These judgments concern the Staff Association:

• Cases No. 8 of the Administrative Tribunal, 20 December 1993 (PDF, 121kb) - The Staff Association requested the reimbursement of expenses it had incurred in the defence of the interests of staff members.

These judgments concern termination of appointment:

• No. 13: 22 December 1994 (PDF, 114kb) - The applicant requested the removal from her personal file of documents criticising her behaviour and forming part of a formal disciplinary action.
   

• No. 29: 27 March 1998 (PDF, 170kb) - The applicant, who had been suspended first with, then without pay, challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the adversarial principle had been breached. 
   

• No. 47: 16 June 2000 (PDF, 143kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to suspend her on salary pending completion of a disciplinary action for a service-connected fault. 
   

• No. 51: 21 December 2001 (PDF, 103kb) - The applicant decided not to seek renewal of his contract because the Secretary-General refused to withdraw a letter reprimanding him for his professional conduct, a letter to which wide publicity had been given. He then asked the Tribunal to consider his resignation as equivalent to unfair dismissal. 
   

• No. 53: 18 April 2002 (PDF, 167kb) - The applicant, who had refused to take up duty in the post to which she was transferred, challenged the resulting decision to dismiss her. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of some of the submissions. 
   

• No. 58: 7 April 2005 (PDF, 137kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to suspend him with pay pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. 
   

• No. 59: 17 March 2005 (PDF, 80kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to issue him with a warning following an altercation on the Organisation’s premises between the applicant and an employee of an outside firm. 
   

• No. 61: 7 March 2006 (PDF, 267kb) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 58 - challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to dismiss him for misconduct. The Tribunal also had to assess the amount of damages flowing from the Judgment in Case No. 58.

These judgments concern time limits:

• Case No. 16 of the Administrative Tribunal, 5 February 1996 (PDF, 110kb) - The applicant requested payment of the residence allowance and asked the Tribunal to make use of the provision allowing it, “in exceptional cases”, to declare admissible an application filed after expiry of the time limit.
   

• No. 41: 15 October 1999 (PDF, 152kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to suppress her post and place her on special leave, and asked for compensation for material and moral prejudice caused by the errors committed by the Administration.
   

• No. 54: 18 April 2002 (PDF, 186kb) - The applicant asked the Tribunal to rule that the theoretical duration of his notice period, following the suppression of his post, should be taken into account in calculating his paid leave and also for the amount of his leaving allowance and pension. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the various submissions.
   

• No. 63: 24 February 2009 (PDF, 238kb) - The applicant asked for compensation for the prejudice she claimed to have suffered as a result of harassment and of decisions refusing her requests for promotion. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
   

• No. 67: 23 March 2010 (PDF, 212kb) - The applicant alleged that the decision not to renew her contract was tainted by discrimination based on the state of her health.  The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
   

• No. 69: 24 March 2011 (PDF, 236kb) - Having unsuccessfully challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to renew her consultancy appointment before French courts, the applicant asks the Tribunal to make use of Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing it, “in exceptional cases”, to declare admissible an application filed after expiry of the time limit. She also claims the payment of various sums to compensate her for the prejudice resulting from the end of her appointment.
   

• No. 75: 6 February 2014 (PDF, 193kb) - The Applicant alleged that the decision not to select him for the position of Senior Public Procurement Adviser was tainted by discrimination on the grounds of age. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
   

• No. 80: 21 March 2016 (PDF, 306 Ko) - The Applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General to withhold the conversion of his fixed-term appointment to an open-ended one with regards to his visa situation and requests his reintegration under an open-ended appointment with the payment of compensatory damages.

This judgement concerns Visa procedure:

• No. 80: 21 March 2016 (PDF, 306 Ko) - The Applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary-General to withhold the conversion of his fixed-term appointment to an open-ended one with regards to his visa situation and requests his reintegration under an open-ended appointment with the payment of compensatory damages.

These judgments concern work accidents:

• No. 56: 30 March 2004 (PDF, 160kb) - The applicant challenged the decision to terminate her appointment following the suppression of her post and in the absence of any suitable vacant post.
   

• No. 67: 23 March 2010 (PDF, 212kb) - The applicant alleged that the decision not to renew her contract was tainted by discrimination based on the state of her health.  The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
   

• No. 68: 15 March 2011 (PDF, 232kb) - The applicant, whose fixed-term appointment came to an end while her health condition resulting from a work-accident was not settled,  asks the Tribunal  to annul the decision of the Secretary-General rejecting her request for renewal of her appointment and to grant her payment of her salary for the period comprised between the end of her contract and the date of consolidation of her state of health. She also claims damages on the basis of the financial, physical and moral injuries caused.
   

• No. 70: 26 March 2012 (PDF, 221kb) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 68 – claims damage, in addition to the indemnities already received in respect of injuries following a work accident, on the basis of the financial, physical and moral injuries caused by the Organisation whose negligence would have prevented the applicant from rapid recovery.
   

• No. 71: 28 March 2012 (PDF, 113kb) - The applicant – the same as in Case No. 67– challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to prevent her from accessing the Joint Advisory Board given her former position of Deputy Secretary-General. 
   

• No. 99: 8 November 2021 (PDF, 236kb) - The applicant asks the Administrative Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretray-General refusing her additional compensation, following an accident recognised as a work accident.