Judgment No. 3214
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
"In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."
Keywords
selection board; retirement; age limit; discretion; request by a party; right; composition of the internal appeals body; extension beyond retirement age
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he essential purpose of the staff regulations of an international organisation is to promote that organisation’s interests while at the same time safeguarding the rights of its staff."
Keywords
staff regulations and rules; organisation's interest; purpose; right; safeguard; official
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, and plainly there is nothing abnormal in stipulating that an extension of appointment beyond that age limit, which by definition constitutes an exceptional measure, can be granted only if it is in the interest of the service."
Keywords
exception; career; retirement; age limit; organisation's interest; condition; right; extension beyond retirement age
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[A] provision [...], which grants the executive head of an organisation the power to propose that another organ adopt a decision, authorises that person to refrain from making such a proposal if he or she sees no reason for it (see Judgment 585, under 5)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 585
Keywords
decision; staff regulations and rules; discretion; executive head; proposal
Consideration 14
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, 2986, under 32, or 3034, under 33)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2459, 2986, 3034
Keywords
decision; exception; applicable law; general principle; acquired right; good faith; non-retroactivity; patere legem; breach; date; request by a party
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant complains about the length of time which elapsed between the filing of his request for the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age and the decision taken on it.
"Since under Article 54 of the Service Regulations the granting of an extension of an appointment is subject to the condition that it is justified in the interest of the service, the Organisation is right in saying that any decision on the subject can logically be taken only at a date relatively close to that on which the permanent employee concerned will reach normal retirement age. Indeed, if the Organisation were to proceed otherwise, the competent authority would not be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such an extension in light of that criterion."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 54 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
Keywords
decision; delay; staff regulations and rules; retirement; age limit; organisation's interest; acceptance; condition; criteria; date; request by a party; extension beyond retirement age
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords
decision; grounds; advisory body; exception; confidential evidence; communication to third party; disclosure of evidence; general principle; organisation's duties; duty to inform; selection board; retirement; age limit; discretion; advisory opinion; proposal; refusal; request by a party; right; official; extension beyond retirement age
Consideration 6
Extract:
In his rejoinder the complainant challenges the receivability of the EPO’s reply on the grounds that it has not been signed by a person with authority to do so. However, Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Rules of the Tribunal does not require a defendant organisation to provide a power of attorney where, as in this case, it is represented by one of its officials (see, for example, Judgment 2965, under 10). This objection will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2965
Keywords
reply; power of attorney
Judgment keywords
Keywords
extension beyond retirement age; complaint dismissed
| 
