Tuck v. Pan American Health Organization et Al.

Ronald Tuck, an employee of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) filed a legal complain against the Organization and its Director Dr. Hector R. Acuna, alleging that the PAHO and Dr. Acuna breached and unduly interfered with Tuck’s contract with the PAHO Staff Association and discriminated him on the basis of his race.

The District Court dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal, however, partially reversed the judgment of first instance.

The Court of Appeal firstly noted that the despite the defendants claimed the dismissal of the case on the basis of their jurisdictional immunity, the District Court did not address this preliminary objection.

In this regard, the Court of Appeal underlined that the PAHO is an international organization based in Washington and it is, thus, immune from national jurisdiction. As held by the Court, the PAHO is shielded from labour related legal claims. In particular, the Court stated that “even under the less expansive restrictive immunity standard” the PAHO is immune from the instant suit, as the claims raised against it concern the supervision of its personnel. According to the Court, the supervision of staff members is not a commercial activities.

The Court of Appeal also held that the legal complains advanced against Dr Acuna for the acts committed as PAHO’s Director were inadmissible, since the defendant, as an official of an international organization, enjoyed functional jurisdictional immunity for the acts performed in his official capacity. However, the Court found that the District Court had jurisdiction over the claims against Dr. Acuna in his individual capacity.