Judgment No. 3617
Decision
1. The decisions of 16 December 2009, 4 February 2010 and 19 June 2013 are set aside.
2. The EPO shall pay the complainant 10,000 euros in compensation for the moral injury resulting from the decisions which have been set aside.
3. It shall pay her 1,000 euros in moral damages for the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings.
4. It shall also pay her 1,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims, insofar as they are not moot, are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination during the investigation of her complaint of harassment and the dismissal of that complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; inquiry; medical examination; harassment; investigation
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the reasons given to the complainant to justify the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination are confined to a general reference to the protection of her health and well-being and to the EPO’s duty of care towards her. Such terms are meaningless unless they are accompanied by more precise information enabling the employee and, as the case may be, the Tribunal to ascertain the real reasons underpinning the decision taken, especially when it involves a measure, such as requiring an employee to undergo a medical examination, which should be hedged with safeguards.
The Tribunal therefore considers that the complainant was insufficiently informed of the reasons why she had to undergo a medical examination and that she was thus prevented from challenging the grounds for this decision in full knowledge of the facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2124
Keywords
motivation; motivation of final decision
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 2552, under 3, the Tribunal pointed out that when an accusation of harassment is made, an international organisation must both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused. The organisation’s duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context (see Judgment 2524), that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account (see Judgments 1376, under 19, 2642, under 8 and 3085, under 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 2524, 2552, 2642, 3085
Keywords
due process; harassment; investigation
|
