Judgment No. 4698
Decision
1. The impugned decision of 8 May 2018 is set aside, as is the decision of 12 June 2017.
2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant, with retroactive effect to July 2017, the function allowance provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 69b of the Staff Regulations.
3. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 3,000 euros.
4. It shall also pay him 6,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant seeks reinstatement in a post to which he had been appointed and requests payment of the corresponding function allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; withdrawal of decision; appointment
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant submits first of all that the impugned decision was unlawful in that authority had not been properly delegated to the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit [...] to take the impugned decision in the name of the Director General.
However, the Tribunal has already held, in Judgment 4593, consideration 5, in a case where the same plea was raised, that the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit did have the authority to take and sign the decision to dismiss an internal complaint, as she did in the impugned decision [...]. That same finding clearly applies to the present case, where the decisions attesting to this delegation of power have again been adduced in evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4593
Keywords
delegated authority
Consideration 6
Extract:
Since the Staff Regulations do not contain any specific provisions governing the conditions for the reversal – as is the case here – or the revocation of administrative decisions, this question can be settled only by referring to the general principles of law applied by the Tribunal. In accordance with these principles, an individual decision conferring an advantage on an official becomes binding on the organisation which has taken it and thus creates rights for the person concerned as soon as it has been notified to her or him in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules (see, for example, Judgments 3693, consideration 17, 3483, consideration 4, 2906, considerations 7 and 8, 2201, consideration 4, and 2112, consideration 7(a)). Where there is no express provision to this effect, as a general rule, such a decision may therefore only be overturned, whether by revocation or reversal, if two conditions are satisfied: the decision must be unlawful and it must not yet have become final (see, inter alia, Judgments 1006, consideration 2, and 994, consideration 14).
The position is different only where the initial decision stemmed from a purely factual error and where its revocation, or reversal, does not result in a breach of the requirements of the principle of good faith (see, in this respect, Judgments 3693, consideration 18, 3483, consideration 6, and 2906, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 994, 1006, 2112, 2201, 2906, 3483, 3693
Keywords
material error; withdrawal of decision
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant claims moral damages for “the unjustified withdrawal of his title and allowance”, which he assesses at 20,000 euros, but does not provide any explanation for this amount. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that the fact that the Organisation questioned whether the complainant was performing the role of a Senior Technical Supervisor, with the management responsibilities that entailed, did cause the complainant a certain moral injury, that this will be sufficiently compensated by the award of 3,000 euros.
Keywords
moral injury
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant also seeks moral damages for the undue delay in the internal appeals procedure. In this regard, he relies in particular on the fact that the Director General’s final decision was not taken within the period of four months from the date on which the internal complaint was lodged, as prescribed by paragraph 2 of Article 92 of the Staff Regulations. However, the Tribunal notes that the appeals procedure lasted eight and a half months, which is not unreasonable, and that, even though the four-month deadline was not observed, the complainant’s submissions do not contain evidence of any particular injury arising from that irregularity. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to award him compensation under this head (see, for example, Judgments 4469, consideration 16, 4401, consideration 10, and 4396, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4401, 4469
Keywords
moral injury; delay in internal procedure
|
