Judgment No. 4396
Decision
1. The impugned decision dated 15 March 2019 is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Appeals Committee on the basis of consideration 14 of this judgment.
3. The EPO shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 2,000 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; internal appeal; case sent back to organisation
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant’s request for oral proceedings is […] rejected, as the Tribunal is sufficiently informed of all aspects of the case to consider it fully on the written submissions and documents which the parties have provided.
Keywords
oral proceedings
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, in particular, Judgment 3086, under 3(d), as well as Judgment 4092, under 10).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3086, 4092
Keywords
new claim; rejoinder
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff member who challenges an individual decision may, at the same time and in the same appeal, challenge the related underlying decision and that a staff member may, in challenging a decision that affects her or him directly, plead the unlawfulness of any general measure that affords the basis for it in law. A staff member may therefore impugn an administrative decision only if it directly affects her or him, but is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which generated their cause of action (see Judgment 3291, under 6 and 8).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3291
Keywords
general decision; cause of action
Consideration 11
Extract:
[S]ubstantiation or non-substantiation of a claim goes to the merits of the claim. It is not a function of receivability or irreceivability.
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body
Consideration 11
Extract:
[A]s the complainant has not articulated the effects of the breach of the applicable rules upon him, he will not be awarded the incidental moral damages which he seeks.
Keywords
moral damages
Consideration 12
Extract:
Notwithstanding that there was unreasonable delay in the internal appeal process, the moral damages which the complainant seeks under this head will not be awarded, as he has not articulated the effects which the delay has caused (see, for example, Judgment 4100, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4100
Keywords
delay in internal procedure
| 
