Judgment No. 4640

• Organization: European Patent Organisation (EPO)
• Date: 01.02.2023
• Original: English
• Judges: Moore, Rawlins, De Nictolis
• Full judgment text - Full judgment text (french)

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges a series of management acts regarding his administrative status.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

post classification; grade; complaint dismissed

Consideration 1

Extract:

The complainant requests the Tribunal to order the production of his personal file. The request is rejected as the file is unnecessary for the determination of the issues raised in this complaint.

Keywords

disclosure of evidence; personal file

Consideration 15

Extract:

The complainant’s request for an award of punitive damages […] is […] rejected as he provides no evidence to prove that by the actions and/or omissions he complains of the EPO intended to cause him harm or that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose on which to base such an award (see, for example, Judgments 4493, consideration 11, and 4484, consideration 9).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484, 4493

Keywords

punitive damages

Consideration 12

Extract:

On the question of delay and remedy, the Vice-President of DG4 arguably was obliged to explain why he favoured the approach of the minority and did not favour the approach of the majority (see Judgments 4427, consideration 9, and 3161, consideration 7) and did not do so adequately. However, it is unnecessary to determine this conclusively because the complainant has failed to establish moral injury occasioned by the delay which would justify an amount exceeding the amount actually awarded.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 4427

Keywords

moral injury; motivation

Consideration 14

Extract:

The complainant requests a retroactive upgrading of his post to grade A2 in career group A4/1 in relation to his post of Brand Manager occupied as of 2004 and to the position of Application Manager occupied as of 1 November 2006. These requests are rejected as a decision as to the level of a post is within the purview of the competent authorities charged with evaluating and classifying posts pursuant to the applicable rules and not within the purview of the Tribunal, which will only determine the legality of the exercise of that power (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 2, and 2514, consideration 13).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514, 4437

Keywords

post classification; judicial review; injunction