Judgment No. 4016
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
contract; retirement; extension beyond retirement age; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint, though initially directed against an implied rejection of an internal complaint, should now be viewed as challenging the express decision taken during the present proceedings, on 13 December 2016 (see, in particular, Judgment 3667, under 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667
Keywords
express decision; implied decision; direct appeal to tribunal; impugned decision
Consideration 5
Extract:
Eurocontrol’s objections to receivability are unfounded. The complainant was directly and immediately adversely affected by the Director General’s decision that did not allow him to remain in service beyond the age of 55, as he had requested. The legal basis of the Director General’s impugned decision that adversely affected the complainant was paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE, which is a provision of general application. “According to th[e] case law, a complainant can impugn a decision only if it directly affects her/him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her/him, but she/he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action.” (See Judgment 3291, under 8, and the case law cited therein.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords
general decision; cause of action
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complaint is unfounded on the merits. Paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE does not violate the general principle of non-discrimination. The Tribunal accepts that air traffic controllers are in a different situation than other servants subject to the GCE (their work situation is also different from that of pilots). The different treatment for this category of servants and, specifically, the lower retirement age, which was 55 at the relevant time, is justified by the specificity of their work and the contested provision is not unreasonable or unjustified, and therefore is not discriminatory. It must be taken into account that: (a) the ordinary activity of air traffic controllers is particularly stressful and mentally demanding, they are also subject to difficult working conditions and to shift work; (b) the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre operates in a complex air space with a high traffic; and (c) possibly, in addition, a low retirement age enables Eurocontrol to recruit air traffic controllers more readily over time. The question of non-discrimination and that of a proper evaluation of the specific nature of the work in question, and therefore of its exigencies, are linked. In this evaluation, which is scientifically based, Eurocontrol’s evaluations should be accepted unless they are shown to be unreliable having regard to current scientific knowledge. In the present case, for the reasons considered above, the evaluations on which the provision in question is based fall within the range of acceptability. [...]
The establishment of a “normal” retirement age for a category of officials is a common rule in international organisations and in national laws. The fact that different rules based on the same or on different criteria (e.g. criteria referring to “a case-by-case basis” or mixed criteria) are established, does not undermine the conclusion that a rule that falls within the range of acceptability and reliability is not unlawful.
Keywords
equal treatment; retirement
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an international organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3939, under 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3939
Keywords
extension beyond retirement age
|
