THE GENERAL FACTS OF
TRIBUNAL OF ANY COMPLAINT PALMA/ESO
(By Sept. 2001 there are 34
official lawsuits against ESO at the I.L.O. Administrative Tribunal)
EXCERPT
FROM THE 25th. CASE PALMA/ESO, AS WELL AS RECORDED AND FILED AT THE
I.L.O. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF GENEVA
(SWITZERLAND)
1.
Mr. Francesco Palma is a graduated Italian born on 1948, who was engaged by the
European Southern Observatory
(shortly ESO, an International Organisation with Headquarters in Germany,
Garching, Munich) as Procurement Officer at its Contracts&Procurement
Department with a delegation of authority but under supervision of a concerned
MANAGER (Mr. Robert Fischer, French), starting from 1.9.1989 and with an initial
3 years fixed term of contract of Employment.
2.
On 1.9.1992, ESO renewed Palma's Employment Contract for further 3 years,
granting him a promotion for his excellent service, which fact would have
constitute the basis for his fixed term employment and for a career in the
Organisation, moreover due to a successive excellent record on his skills made
by the Finance Committee (Le. the 8 Financial Representatives of the Nations of
the ESO) for his work "in the best interests of the
ESO".
3. However on beginning May 1993, the Manager of Contracts&Procurement, taking advantage of a temporary short leave of the subaltern, manipulated a Contract under his Administration and was granting undue DM 570.949 to a supplier. Mr. Palma came back just in time to realise the dishonest action and to block the acts of his Head, already in the hands of the new Director General (Mr. Riccardo Giacconi) simply for his endorsement and by then by him delayed just by accident. He avoided thus, as also recorded by an ESO Board on 28.6.1995, a sure and huge financial loss to the Organization. The Head put forward a personal mistake and the case seemed closed.
4.
By Dec. 10,1993, the same Head of Contracts submitted to the subaltern a letter,
arbitrarily 100% made by him in Palma’s name, and unduly financing the same
supplier with DM 6.855.282. He ordered the subaltern to sign immediately that
document, due to concerned delegation of authority for that Contract. Mr. Palma
analysed instead the document and realised again that ESO would have incurred in
another sure huge financial loss, under his full liability this time if he had
signed the 100% paper written by his boss in his name. He declined thus the
injunction and requested a right correction of the document for consenting his
signature. Instead of that, Mr. Robert Fischer charged immediately in secrecy
the subaltern of a grave insubordination by the equivalent authority of the
Director General, i.e. the "old" Head of Administration (Mr. Bachmann). This
wise Manager, contrarily to the expectations of the Head of Contracts, granted
fortunately by own motion a hearing to the parties, ascertained that Palma was
right and declared him not guilty of having shown professionalism in ESO
interests. The Head of Contracts, called on turn to justify his written wrong
act, fearfully put forward again his mistake and misunderstanding. The case also
seemed closed with no official inquest on the Head's failures and with no
disciplinary measure for both parties.
5. On 13.1.1994, however,
the Head of Contracts called a meeting with all his subalterns and putting
forward before of anybody a precise will of the Director General for a
re‑organisation of the Contracts of Procurement withdrew Palma's delegation of
authority for the 23 Million DM Contract, which was object of the facts above
and imposed him instead double charges of work in a stand‑alone mode, i.e.
without the help up to then received by one or more assistants. The subaltern
was so compelled to work with no break before of old terminals, making unpaid
overtime for meeting nevertheless the forced objectives of work and to maintain
his employment at ESO.
6.
As consequence, by May 1994 he got a Health's accident at work that will bring
him a severe permanent disability after one year of ineffective medic‑care.
Nevertheless, by end 1994 he was again so successful in his job to get even
written praise and esteem from the technical Management he served. But all that
was not sufficient for his Head, who in occasion of a confidential "Employment
Contract Board" (requested by ESO Rules to grant an indefinite Employment after
five years of service and where an employee is not allowed to attend),
manipulated the legal procedures of the Board (favourable by Sept. 1994 with 3
votes against the one of the Head to a Palma's indefinite employment). By Dec.
1994, Robert Fischer provoked an unlawful review of the Board, which was
nevertheless still in favour of a prolongation of Palma's Employment at ESO for
at least further 3 years. In consideration of this aspect, Mr. Fischer
approached the new Head of Administration (Mr. Buschmeier) and the new Head of
Personnel (Mr. Zeller), under the relative new Directorship of Mr. Glacconi, to
get rid anyway of the honest subaltern from his Division and from ESO (since
witness of his failures).
He
could have a good chance because those managers were new and also only
interested to make their own business instead of the ones of the Organisation as
it will be proved clearly by July 1995 by the DG himself, when they finally will
begin to leave the ESO: they hired even personnel of convenience (Mrs. Van der
Stroom) for Palma's future vacancy by‑passing the Rules and put her, in
disregard of any official procedure, in front of him in his office even 4 months
before of an unlawful date of termination.
7.
In fact, on 2.2.1995 Mr. Palma, who was still undergoing medical analyses for a
consolidation of his severe disability in conformity to the requirements stated
in the Rules, instead of receiving an extension of his Contract of employment,
as well as recommended by concerned Board, received a sudden Notice of
Termination by 31 Aug. 1995, moreover instead of the legal “one year Notice” in
his case that would have rendered a last day of work at ESO on
1.2.1996.
8. That Notice however, physically written by the new Head of Personnel on behalf of the DG, gave no reason, expressed or implied of the decision, did not evidence at all a “Miranda Rule” and did not have the mandatory ruled feature of a “FINAL DECISION”.
Instead,
it was only making reference for the reasons of the decision to a huge
documentation of the “Employment Contract Board” under liability of the Head of
the Personnel, which seemed fully disappeared in the Organisation (even by the
Managers of the Board). In consideration of his bad situation of Health and of
the obstruction made by the Heads of Contracts and Personnel to give a legal
reason of Termination, which fact would have been the only way to allow him also
an immediate legal APPEAL to the Director General against the decision, Mr.
Palma requested the intervention of the Local Staff Association (LSA) for
investigation and research of the disappeared
documents.
9.
By May 1995 the LSA came to the conclusion that the papers were not volatilised
at ESO but hidden someway at the Personnel Office. Upon a combined action of the
LSA, the new Head of Personnel (Mr. Kurt Zeller) was finally compelled, to
release the huge acts of the Board (in favour of an Employment's Contract),
whereas Mr. Zeller justified in written his delinquent behaviour and his three
months failure as "a back log at his Office", as it would be normal to have long
"back logs" at ESO and a Breach of the Administrative Procedures on the reasons
of a decision.
10.
Mr. Giacconi, Director General of the ESO, could receive thus two Palma APPEALS
dated 31.5.1995, i.e. in time considered the circumstances and the disclosure of
the “no reason” of the decision of Termination. One appeal was expressly against
the TERMINATION and one against Breach of Legal Procedures, inclusive of a
report against the "back log" provoked by the Head of Personnel. The DG
instead of acknowledging anyway the Appeals and to call a "Judicial Board" in
conformity to the Rules, began to protect the Criminal Failures of his
Administration, which new Head Mr. W. Buschmeier, due to his inexperience,
was subject to the "eminence grise" of the Head of Contracts&Procurement, as
Deputy of the Administration, for concerned administrative acts.
The
DG rejected thus dictatorially both Appeals with the illicit statements "you
are too late for an Appeal" "there is no Possibility of Appeal against Breach of
Procedures at ESO", even though not defending at all the Organisation
against Palma’s heavy charges, worthy of a subpoena or of a heavy penalty if
false, against the new ADMINISTRATION for the support it was giving to the
Proved dishonesty of his Head.
11.
In the meantime (March‑June 1995) the ESO Director General could not deny to the
Complainant other two “JUDICIAL BOARDS”, one for an Appeal against another issue
of Termination and one for an Appeal concerning REHABILITATION MEASURES,
following his disability incurred at work and finally consolidated by the
doctors only by March 1995.
12.
On 28.6.1995 morning it took thus place at ESO the Joint Appeal Advisory Board
(JAAB) for investigating and judging Palma's Appeal of 13 March 1995, against
the decision linked to his Termination. The Independent Bench inquired thus
Palma on the grave charges moved by him to the Administration, on reported
Dishonesty of Heads and on the General Managerial Failures at ESO, of which he
could know and that were the only reasons of his Termination. The Board called
several witnesses, who confirmed in polite terms the reported "FAILURES" at ESO,
as originating from the specific persons of the Head of Contracts and the new
Managers of the Administration and of the Personnel.
The JAA Board closed its meeting at 12,30 in view of a possible further inquiry of the parties to come finally to its Report against the Mismanagement at ESO, only discovered by the apparent “personal case Palma” and by the deep knowledge he had on the unlawful facts at the Administration. The Board will take a final clear position for Palma and against “Managerial Failures", recommending finally in its report of 21 July 1995:
“The
Board sees the danger
that this type of cases (like
Palma's one) will happen again in future with bad effects on the morale of the
staff ... The Board unanimously recommend to the DG to have the failures in this
case properly
investigated and understood and to take action to avoid their repetition in
future".
13.
However, by the
evening of 28 June
1995,
same
day of the Joint Appeal Advisory Board, Mr. Palma, already put under observation
of the unlawful hired Mrs. Van der Stroom sitting in front of him, was going to
finalize new acts for Legal Actions against the DG decisions concerning his two
previous Appeals of May 31, 1995, when at 17,25 his Head of Contracts and
Procurement and the Personnel Officer (Mr. Brauneis), instead of first waiting
the report of the Board held in the morning, burst suddenly into his office,
surrounded him like in an arrest in "flagranti delicto", delivered him a Notice
of immediate "Special Leave" (i.e. of a measure that may imply an utmost
disciplinary action against the Staff Member), gave him “five
minutes" to collect all his personal stuff to be searched and for
disappearing “forever”
from ESO.
14.
Now, referring the "Special Leave", the Organization implemented its
"disciplinary measure" rather unconventionally with respect to the requirements
imposed by the Rules&Regulations.
FORMALLY, the Measure did not
follow the recommendation of a previous required and mandatory judicial ESO
Board; it was sudden; not justifying the legal reasons of such an extreme act;
not stating what prejudice the Organization would have received from a Mr. Palma
presence at ESO; it was handed informally like a piece of paper thrown on his
desk, out of any confidentiality declared; it expressed an unknown
"investigation" already in progress; it implied "discovery" of Complainant’s
criminal acts 'in flagranti delicto'; it implied an utmost punitive character;
it was undefined in time; it did not specify the rights of the Complainant to an
immediate defence (MIRANDA RULE); it had no content of a "SEARCH WARRANT" and a
mandate of " SEARCH".
SUBSTANCIALLY,
the measure was an unlawful real "arrest":
The
two representative of the ESO Director General, as carriers of the missive, did
not "knock and announce”,
rule
that is required to any acting Policemen of all Democratic Countries: they burst
without any warning into Complainant's office; surrounded him; deprived him of
his liberty to go home or to call people in help; threw the missive on his desk
with no explanation; before the Complainant even finished to glance at the
content, they stopped the reading and enjoined five minutes to collect
all his personal stuff and to leave ESO forever; upon a Complainant's polite
protest that the action was illegal, they enjoined authoritatively "absolute
silence" (deprivation of word); menaced a hand‑forced action against any
contrary objection; later on, while he was collecting his personal stuff, one of
the acting "guards" put the Complainant under strict observation at any minimal
movement, while the other proceeded with an accurate search of all personal
effects and private correspondence, seizing everything deemed 'ESO", i.e. even
copy of Appeals and personal documentation from the Organization. The
Complainant could not avoid to break the silence and to dare a polite protest
when the personal copy of the Rules&Regulations was also confiscated. On
end, alter having collected his searched stuff, he was surrounded both sideways
by the two "directors', who, as acting policemen, escorted him at every step
along the corridors, while subject to a silent gaze of crossing colleagues.
Then, they forced him, unmercifully for his laboured conditions, to exit in a
rush ESO premises through a “tradesman door", while in sweat and visibly
overwhelmed, where also crowding friends had to remain at distance from his
apparent "criminal" person, scared of an Organization's
retaliation.
15. That there is no fantasy in
what reported above was proved by the ESO Local Staff Association (LSA) and can
be witnessed by the colleagues.
In
fact, the day
after 29.6.1995, the LSA Chairman (Mr. Dekker), upon ascertained Proof and
hearing of witnesses, initiated directly on behalf of the LSA, i.e. on behalf of
all Staff members at ESO, a legal
action against the "criminal offence" made by the Organization to Mr.
Palma.
16.
The fact that Complainant's "Special Leave”
wasn't an Administrative Measure but a real "Exile" and a "Home Arrest", like in
a Preventive criminal confinement for
a breach discovered "in flagranti delicto", was rendered evident by the
Organization itself by its behaviour, control
of Presence at home and by verbal (phone)
and written menace from its Personnel in July 1995:
‑
On the 6.7.1995, when, upon a "phone control" of presence at home, the Head of
Personnel ordered the Complainant to come the day after to ESO for his claimed
"Rehabilitation Board": this would have been “the
only and last chance" granted him by ESO for a "(Health) Rehabilitation" instead
of a several months regular
process, which
were instead mandatory according to the Rules&Regulations in
force;
‑
On the 7.7.1995, when, the Complainant coming to ESO for convened Board was
stopped at Reception upon command of the Administration, put under strict
observation, not allowed to talk to crowding colleagues, then picked up and
escorted by an acting guard at every step before of the very quick convened
"Rehabilitation Board", where he was slandered by the Head of Personnel. On end,
the irregular Board, which Administrative Procedures were already violated, was
also biased by the "criminal" presentation and "Status" of the Complainant and
could not deliberate essential "Rehabilitation Measure" in his favour (These
facts are duly proved and documented in judgements 1665 &
1718);
‑
By the 20.7.1995, when, after some other control of the "Home Arrest", the
Senior Personnel Officer, under directives of the Heads of Personnel and of
Administration, even menaced in written the Complainant of "disciplinary
measures" would he come again to work at ESO, having he dared to ask the
withdrawal of the "Special Leave", the liberty of movement and the access again
in ESO for his final fulfilment of duties up to the imposed date of departure
31.8.1995.
17.
By Middle July 1995, the Head of Contracts (Mr. R. Fischer) and the Personnel
Officer (Mr. Brauneis) also committed a documented "FORGERY" in attempt to
justify their shameful behaviour of “acting
policemen”
and of made injury. Being unsuccessful, the Personnel Officer issued the written
menace to the Complainant, but unsupported by any official decision of ESO. Mr.
Palma APPEALED thus to the DG, against such a scandalous behaviour, requiring at
same time an END of the ESO unjustified Special Leave.
18.
On 26 July 1995, following all this situation, PALMA's APPEALS, THE DIRECT
INTERVENTION OF THE LSA ON BEHALF OF ALL THE STAFF MEMBERS, THE EVIDENT
DISAPPOINTMENT OF ALL PERSONNEL AT ESO, THE FINAL REPORT dated 21.7.1995 issued
by THE JOINT APPEAL ADVISORY BOARD OF 28.6.1995, which took on end a clear
position in favour of Palma and recommended to the DG to investigate and to
remove the Managerial Failures discovered in the case, THE ESO DIRECTOR GENERAL
(BEFORE OF THIS HUGE SCANDAL AND HAVING ALSO INDEPENDENTLY GOT THE PROOF THAT
HIS DEPUTY AND HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION WAS SECRETELY PLOTTING TO CONTROL HIM AND
THE ENTIRE ORGANISATION) FIRED MR. BUSCHMEIER ON THE
SPOT.
THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL HAD TO CALL THUS IN THE FUNCTION THE OLD AND RETIRED EX HEAD OF
ADMINISTRATION, MR. BACHMANN, WHO HAD TO UNTERTAKE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT THE
FUNCTION OF "ACTING HEAD" AT ESO, i.e. HE WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY EMPOWERED, AS
BEFORE, OF LEGAL POWER EQUIVALENT (IF NOT EQUAL) TO THE DG
ONE.
REMARKS:
For the sake of honesty and impartiality of telling the Truth nothing else
but the Truth, I
also report the ESO version on this aspect, so as given to the ILO
Administrative Tribunal (Judgement 1785): “Mr.
Buschmeier was not fired, but he left ESO (in few
minutes)
by
his own" [i.e.
despite of the fact that his Function, after the DG's one, is the only function
at ESO, which must undergo to direct Approval and Control of the COUNCIL (8
National Ministries of the ESO), then absolutely cannot be left suddenly with no
notice and “by
own motion”].
By
its judgement 1785 of 28.1.1999, however, the ILO Administrative Tribunal barred
any TRANSPARENCY on reported aspects and dismissed consequently my Complaint,
aimed to a disclosure and receipt of all ESO existing documentation, which was
specifically concerning the facts of June‑July 1995,
undoubtedly linked to the dishonest behaviour of the Management against me,
apart of touching interests of Transparency of the Organization and of all its
Staff.
19.
Anyway, Mr. BACHMANN, re‑appointed immediately even though very sick, took very
few to understand the situation. By end July 1995, an Investigation Board,
specifically held at ESO in absence of the parties Palma and Mr. Dierckx, who
were impeached by the Failing Management with the Special Leave, also concluded
its works, declaring both Staff Members NOT GUILTY of any
FAULT
attributed
to them. Mr. Bachmann wrote thus to Palma a letter dated 28.7.1995, as an ESO
Final Decision, of "regret" for his situation, of "assurance" of remedy for the
tort suffered and to stop at the moment any
Palma’s
pretence of a Criminal Court for the ESO facts.
Mr.
Bachmann, incurably sick, passed then soon away, but ESO is since five
years
in BREACH of that ASSURANCE (link to end of point 21
below).
20.
Since 29.6.1995
up to end 1995, following the intervention of the Local Staff Association, that
hired a Lawyer, the "only Administrative" case Palma was thus fully in the hands
of a Professional attorney, Mr. Sicault of Paris. Both, LSA and Palma had to pay
jointly the Lawyer.
21.
By Dec. 1995, however, MR. SICAULT pretended DM 12.500 (FRS 10.500) simply for
ADVICE and ASSESSMENT of the "Administrative" part of the case PALMA made since
29.6.1995 to the LSA.
By
this time he advised Palma and the LSA of the need to withdraw the two
COMPLAINTS already submitted to ILOAT, dated 19.7.1996 and 24.10.1995 on Palma's
TERMINATION, simply due to an assumed expiration of Statutory Terms of Tribunal,
following all confusion, confiscation of documents and Appeals etc. caused by
ESO between Feb.‑July 1995,
then during June 28‑End 1995.
By end 1995
ESO was still in defect of delivering evidences for the lawyer from
Palma’s
Personal File at ESO, while he was still barred to access the Organisation.
(It
must be recalled that Mr. Bachmann hit by irremediable disease passed away in a
relative short time after his re‑appointment and before Mr. Zeller, Failing Head
of Personnel, will be by
ESO also substituted. The DG. R. GIACCONI, together with a new Administrator,
will so uphold a scandalous Policy of dictatorship, Reticence, Lies and
Obstruction of Justice to cover his heavy errors and omission in the reported
MANAGERIAL FAILURES at ESO and “case
Palma”).
22.
Now, coming back to the Lawyer’s
issue on end 1995,
upon a Palma's strong
insistence by the Attorney for a continuation of his LAWSUITS without fail at
the ILO Administrative Tribunal,
Mr. Sicault made again present that the case of Termination had to be considered
lost anyway and that the COMPLAINANT would have not made the interests of his
family, of his health (and of ESO Staff, who was contributing to the case) if
insisting to complain an issue at ILOAT causing a sure loss of additional
(unavailable) DM 50.000, partly pretended also immediately cash‑advance (Le.
something impossible even to borrow, considered Complainant's health, economical
conditions and the LSA contributions). The Lawyer showed thus an evident
discouraging reluctance to continue the Lawsuits already in
Tribunal.
23. The LSA had thus also to settle the case Palma and pay DM 5.000 to the Lawyer, as well as Palma had to pay cash the remaining DM 7.500 and give up the Administrative Lawsuits already in Tribunal on his specific issue of Termination following a "PROFESSIONAL ADVICE” on an unknown lloat's JUSTICE and on its barring terms.
[This
fact should induce ILOAT to reflect on Tribunal's procedures, which are never
explained by the Organisation to any Staff Members even by the Rules. Moreover,
on the legal costs of ITS JUSTICE, which certainly do not reflect even the
amounts the Tribunal grants to a successful Complainant, who is compelled to sue
by a Lawyer (e.g. compare the costs awarded to my ex‑colleague Mr. Dierckx,
Judgment 1746 of 9.7.1998, and Mr. Sicault bill for his improper assessment of
my case).
ILOAT
actually pretends that a modest employee, who has any other
specialisation but trials, transforms himself on occasion and by unknown 90 days
of its Statute in a specialist of Rules and of Tribunal, whereas also a LSA and
an expert Lawyer proved to fail]!
However,
the READER OF THESE FACTS should take note that ESO‑LSA almost never intervened
in past times to pay LEGAL ACTIONS of a STAFF MEMBER against the ESO.
The
direct legal actions of the LSA at ESO in defence of a Staff Member begun just
under the Administration Buschmeier (1995), under
the
Directorship Giacconi and just involved
the
cases Palma and Dierckx, who also won at Iloat (see his judg. 1746)! The
financial support and action of the LSA were justified only when the case would
have concerned the dignity, the morale and the legal interests of the generality
of all Staff Members, then not only of the simple single person in dispute with
the Organisation, as well
as also reported by the Joint Appeal Board of 28.6.95.
Here is that all ESO Staff Members were informed and called to approve directly
the expense of DM 5.000 from their pockets for sustaining
Palma’s
case, since the violence and the Criminal Offence made by ESO physically to him
concerned in reality the dignity of anybody, breaches and a terror imposed by
FAILING MANAGERS to all the STAFF MEMBERS and to all remaining HONEST
MANAGEMENT.
REMARKS: THE CASE PALMA WAS AND IS STILL NOW IN THE INTERESTS OF THE MORALE AND MOTIVATION OF ALL ESO STAFF MEMBERS, AS WELL AS EVIDENCED ALSO BY THE ESO Joint A.A. Board of 28.6.1995 in its Report and recently (Nov. 1999) by the moral solidarity the Staff gave him in his challenge of Rehabilitation issues made directly before of the National Representatives of the ESO Finance Committee.
Therefore, ESO LSA AND ITS STAFF MEMBERS HAVE STILL AN UTMOST RIGHT TO FOLLOW UP TRIBUNAL's judgements in Palma's cases:
1.
First, because they all know the reality of the facts, whatever a Judgement may
publish.
2.
Second, a TRANSPARENCY on the obscure ESO facts on 1995 is not only a question
of Palma, but also a question concerning "Honesty" at ESO, implying the HONEST
MANAGEMENT, who also sustained, contributed for Palma and had to suffer the
terror under the Administration Buschmeler/Glacconi. It concerns as well all ESO
STAFF and all ESO Tax Payers, in conformity to the principles of TRANSPARENCY
demanded by the UNITED NATIONS to all CIVIL SERVANT ORGANIZATIONS, inclusive
ESO, ILO and ILOAT too.
3.
Third, because ESO STAFF MEMBERS are entitled upon a positive conclusion of
Palma’s legal actions to the reimbursement OF THEIR 5.000 DM, contributed from
their pockets for
him. Under above aspects, an unfair defeat of Palma is a defeat of all honest
ESO Staff and of all HONESTY principles. Who in Procurement will dare again to
make the interest of an Organisation instead of a Head's one after knowing the
reality of the case Palma at ESO and of the Administrative Justice he is
receiving in name of unknown terms and procedures of Tribunal even not indicated
at all by a “Miranda Rule” of an ambiguous decision of
ESO?
24.
Coming back to the facts, by Jan. 1996 following Lawyer’s retreat and the
recommendation of the ESO irregular Rehabilitation Board of 7.7.1995, it also
followed a written discharge of liabilities from ESO to its SOCIAL INSURER [the
C.E.R.N. PENSION FUND at C.E.R.N. (European Organisation for Nuclear
Research in Geneva)] of Palma's Rehabilitation issues and Health's matters. On
the other hand, considered the silence of ESO Rules and of the Lawyer on
Tribunal's procedures, moreover also due to a concerned inexperience of the LSA
at that time, Mr. Palma was informed only by accident on May 1996 by Iloat's
REGISTRAR (Mr. Gardner) on the possibility he had to bring lawsuits
personally and without the need of a Lawyer. By then, it was too late to
re‑open a "barred" question of Termination, but he was still in time for
claiming at Iloat any Administrative aspect concerning his "Health's
Rehabilitation”, moreover to bring action and to prepare all preliminary acts,
by the judgements of Tribunal, for his specific request of a CRIMINAL COURT FOR
ESO FACTS, for special procedures of the United Nations and for a publication
worldwide of the facts of ESO inclusive of all the acts of the ILO
Administrative Tribunal.
25.
By July 1996, Mr. Palma had so to issue his first direct Lawsuit against
the CERN, because its PENSION FUND was awarding him "Ex Gratia Benefits”,
i.e. a CHARITY in a Layman's word, without a HEALTH INSURANCE FOR
DISABILITIES, instead of returning the in time Appealed case Palma to the ESO,
as liable of an unlawful REHABILITATION BOARD, BREACH OF Administrative
Procedures, of missing Rehabilitation Measures, i.e. job and Health
Insurance.
26.
By Judgement 1665 of 10.7.1997, the I.L.O. Administrative Tribunal however gave
right to the C.E.R.N. The Tribunal accepted only the thesis of the CERN about
its duty of a strict administrative application of ESO decisions, without having
regard either to ESO VIOLATED PROCEDURES OF REHABILITATION or to an endangering
of PALMA'S HEALTH, who by then was still left by ESO without of an in time
Appealed HEALTH INSURANCE. Since Dec. 8,1995, ESO in fact was discharging
officially any Appealed competence thereof on the
CERN.
On
10.7.1997, ILOAT, the Administrative Tribunal, sentenced thus Palma and his
family to live of a CHARITY of the CERN instead of the LABOUR of the ESO,
moreover without a due HEALTH INSURANCE for disabilities. The judges denied in
fact a direct consideration of the Health Insurance, upon an expressed discharge
of liability made on turn by the CERN during that process. The judges instead
wrote in their sentence an unproved statement, never recalled and never
specifically disputed by both Parties Palma/CERN in the whole process against
the CERN, i.e. “Mr. Palma did not Appeal against that (ESO) decision (of
Termination)" (Point 10, Judg. 1665).
(REMARKS:
Here, the ILO Administrative Tribunal shall remark that in this lawsuit its
judges credited a precise false statement only feasible by ESO and later on only
perjured by ESO, i.e. even though it was never expressed by the CERN in all its
acts of the judgement. In fact, the ESO TERMINATION was not at all an issue of
that Complaint. The CERN refused even any mention and dispute of this aspect in
its Reply and Su‑rejoinder. In all acts of the CERN it does not exist
even an implied text ”Mr. Palma did not Appeal against that (ESO)
decision (of Termination)", as a reason evidenced by the CERN to dispute
and to dismiss that Complaint. The CERN pointed out, instead and always,
that the Complaint, causing the judgment 1665, expressly concerned the decisions
of the CERN, i.e. Insurance Policy CERN/ESO and its CERN Pension Fund decisions.
ILOAT accepted on end only the arguments of the CERN for a
dismissal!
Concerned
judges should therefore clarify at I.L.O why they published in the judgement
1665 the falsehood “Mr. Palma did not Appeal against that (ESO) decision (of
Termination)", using a diction that could be only feasible by a strenuous
defender of ESO but in a trial of the
ESO, in justification of the Criminal Facts of the ESO itself, in order to
charge me of a non‑existing Culpable Negligence in the case. Strangely instead,
that diction came out for the first time only by the judges of Iloat and even
before of any lawsuit I was producing directly against the ESO!
After
that sentence, ESO naturally misused always that precise text and I was charged
always with the “burden of proof” of the contrary, what I did, i.e. that “I
appealed on 31.5.1995 against that ESO decision. I produced on 31.5.1995 the
Appeals ESO wanted. These Appeals were confiscated on 28.6.1995, as also proved
by an ESO official stamp".
Nevertheless,
in most of subsequent judgements, the Tribunal disregarded unfairly any
evidence, showed an incredible partiality for ESO and published in SLANDER to my
person (e.g. judg. 1919 of 3.2.2000 point 2) the precise falsehood “He did not
Appeal the Termination" perjured by the ESO on the basis of the judgement 1665,
instead of fairly evidencing the existence of Appeals, the Criminal Facts of
the Organisation against my Appeals and its Administrative Procedural Breaches
against any action of Appeal).
27.
Coming back to the facts, ESO, that by July 1997 was refusing any consideration
of a HEALTH INSURANCE and that was lacking even of a civil courage to put in
written its FINAL DECISIONS in such a sense, upon a Palma's new Complaint at
ILOAT (Judg. 1718 of 28.1.1998), DECEIVED THUS THE COURT: “It was not the ESO
that was denying a Health Insurance to the Complainant but it was the
Complainant, who was turning down a relative offer from the
ESO"!
28.
THE JUDGEMENT 1718 OF 29.1.1998 PUBLISHED THUS ANOTHER INCREDIBLE UNFAIRNESS,
UNDOCUMENTED BY ESO AND CONTRARY TO ANY EXISTING
EVIDENCE!
EVEN
THOUGH ILOAT's SENTENCE CONCERNED ON END A LACK OF COMPETENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL IN
IMPOSING TO A DIRECTOR GENERAL OF AN ORGANIZATION TO PUT IN WRITTEN HIS
DELINQUENT DECISIONS, IT REPORTEO ANOTHER "WRONG APPRAISAI” that will be object
of a strong dispute in all Mr. Palma's subsequent Lawsuits, i.e. Mr. Palma could
not turn down a Human Right he was claiming by Appeals and Tribunal since
7.7.1995, time of ESO Rehabilitation Board. He could not turn down a
non‑existing offer, swindled by ESO to the judges, who proved strangely
to be very gullible upon the ESO unproved and undocumented allegation (pure
LIE). This contrary reality was also proved recently by a Personnel Officer
(Mrs. Kerk) to the inquiring Members of the ESO Finance Committee on 3.11.1999
(Mr. Sessi, Italy, and Mr. Steinacher, CH, who could be also called in witness).
Palma did not turn down any ESO Health Insurance. Also, he could not, because
ESO offer was non‑existing at all!
The
power of turning down anything, i.e. a Final Decision from a Defendant
Organisation, is a power only vested in the ILO Administrative Tribunal in
conformity to its Statute!
By
Tribunal’s Statute a Staff or ex Staff Member shall only apply to the ILO
Administrative Tribunal, if she/he wants a “turning down” whatever from an
Organisation. But to defend the ESO and its criminal failures at any costs, the
judges did not hesitate to attribute upon Mr. Palma such a power!
29.
In summary since 31.8.1995, official date of termination, Palma, due to his
heavy disabilities of ESO origin, could not work anymore and anywhere as before,
despite of his proved skills and capabilities, since nobody, no Organization, no
Company, no State was accepting him as severe disable person to be hired by
charging its SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM of burdens of competence of the ESO. A new
Employer, even though willing to hire Palma, could not accept to cover him with
measures of Rehabilitation and a Health Insurance for disabilities since ever
denied by the ex employer ESO. The only way open to the aged Complainant was
thus unemployment and Tribunal, whereas also a National and moreover Private
Health Insurances declined at all to insure him!
30.
The lack of any ESO Health Insurance and the lack of huge financial means for
private Medic‑Care affected afterwards consistently the Health of the
Complainant up to the point that he deteriorated irreversibly his original
disability and other diseases, what facts were ascertained by the CERN itself
and by its doctors between July‑Dec. 1998.
On
the other hand, the ILO Administrative Tribunal by the case AT‑5‑1250
(3rd.Complaint against ESO) did not acknowledge a dramatic situation of the
state of Health of the Complainant, duly proved widely by the CERN Pension Fund
too. The Tribunal dismissed so by judg. 1843 of 8.7.1999, by STILL UNJUSTIFIED
PROCEDURES and by UNUNDERSTANDABLE REASONS, which are STILL UNDER REVIEW BY ITS
PRESIDENT, an urgent request of an ESO new Rehabilitation Board, in quality of
only Original Judicial Bench of the conditions of Palma’s disability and as only
organism empowered by Rules and by Statute of Tribunal to a
recommendation of urgent Medical Care in favour of the ex‑employee upon
consolidation or deterioration of disability.
The
result was that since the 8.7.1999 and once again, under liability of an ILO
Administrative Tribunal this time, Mr. Palma was left in his deteriorating
conditions of Health, as if it would not be an affair of an Administrative
Tribunal of the I.L.O.
to consider the contingent interests to the Health of an unfortunate ex Staff
member of an International Organisation before of evident errors, omissions and
non‑fulfilment of duty of concerned Director General
(DG).
31.
In conclusion, since the 1996 up today, Mr. Palma is submitting directly 37
Administrative Complaints (3 against CERN and 34 against ESO) to bring LIGHT and
JUSTICE in his case.
Since
ADMINISTRATIVELY HE CANNOT OBTAIN ANYMORE HIS ORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT AT ESO AS
PROCUREMENT OFFICER, WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ILO ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS
BARRED IN TIME DESPITE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SO CALLED "BAD
FAITH”
PROVED BY THE ORGANIZATION, HIS ACTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS CONCERN ONLY
HEALTH AND REHABILITATION ISSUES, INDEMNITIES, DEMAND OF DOCUMENTATION AND
CERTIFICATE, ESO LAWS SPECIFICALLY RECALLING ORGANISATION’S LIABILITIES FOR
HEALTH AND DISABILITY.
IN
OTHER WORDS THE ACTUAL LEGAL CASES AT ILOAT CONCERN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES THAT
BY ESO RULES AND REGULATIONS, BY EXISTING APPEALS, BY CONTINOUS DISPUTE IN
TRIBUNAL NEVER COULD LOSE THEIR FORCE.
32.
THE CRIMINAL FACTS OF THE ESO, STILL IN LACK OF A REMEDY, ALSO NEVER LOST THEIR
FORCE AS WELL AS THE CASES OF THE FORCED WORKERS BY THE NAZISTS UP TO THE 1946.
THESE CASES COULD NOT BE SUBJECT RECENTLY, AFTER 66 YEARS, TO A DISMISSAL FOR
EXPIRED TERMS BECAUSE THE POOR VICTIMS COULD NOT COMPLAIN BY FIXED STATUTORY
TERMS OF A NATIONAL OR OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OF LABOUR.
IT
MUST BE REMINDEO THAT TODAY GERMANY SHALL PAY NEVERTHELESS 10 BILLIONS DM TO
CONCERNED FORCED WORKERS DESPITE OF SPECIFIC BARRING TERM FORESEEN ALSO BY ITS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF LABOUR.
THE ACTUAL LEGAL SITUATION OF MR. PALMA IS AN EQUIVALENT THEREOF, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NAZI ADMINISTRATION, THAT WAS ALSO SUSTAINING THE “LEAGUE OF THE NATIONS” (ex UNO) AND AN ADMINISTRATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, WHOSE DIRECTOR GENERAL MAY DECIDE TO USE, EVEN THOUGH IN THE SHORT TIME OF HIS MANDATE, A STYLE “HITLER” OR "MILOSEVIC" IN A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION CONSTITUTED FOR A “CIVIL SERVICE” ACCORDING TO I.L.O. and U.N.O. PRINCIPLES, THEN OBSTRUCTING ANY ACTION OF A STAFF MEMBER FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE (Wilful concealment and confiscation of documents, "five minutes" to leave forever, unjustified arrest, menace, injury, forgery, perjury etc.)
THE
STATUTE AND THE TERMS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE I.L.O
CANNOT BE MISUSED BY THE DEFENDANDS IN NAME OF A RIGID BUROCRATIC PROTECTION OF
AN EVIDENT DELINQUENTIAL BEHAVIOUR OF FAILING MANAGERS OF AN ORGANIZATION. THE
BAD FAITH OF AN ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE EXCHANGED WITH A NON‑EXISTING
“CULPABLE
NEGLIGENCE”
OF A COMPLAINANT WHEN CRIMINAL FACTS AND OBSTRUCTION OF THE JUSTICE OF THE
ORGANIZATION AT ANY LEVEL ARE PROVED.
A
CONTRARY UNDERSTANDING MEANS THE INSTITUTION OF A CIVIL AND PENAL COURT FOR THE
CASE PALMA AND FOR ALL INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVANTS, WHAT AT THIS POINT BECOMES
NECESSARY ANYWAY IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LIMITATIONS AND LACK OF COMPETENCIES
EXPRESSLY DECLARED BY THE ILO ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ITSELF BY ITS JUDGEMENTS
1718 of 29 Jan.1998, 1845 of 8 July 1999 and 1945 of 3 Feb.
2000.
JUDGEMENTS
OF THE I.L.O ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VICIATED IN THE PROCEDURES AND IN THE
SENTENCES, FOR AN EVIDENT GUARANTEE AND PROTECTION OF CRIMINAL FACTS AT AN
ORGANISATION AFFECTING ON END ITS FINAL DECISIONS, ALSO MEAN THE INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE FOR THE I.L.O. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.