Judgment No. 739
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Summary
Extract:
In 1984, after the President of the Office adopted new rules to take account of the Tribunal's case law, the complainant was awarded a further step in his grade and additional seniority. He is asking that the impugned decision take effect not as from 1 January 1984 as called for by the new rules but as from 1 June 1982, the date when he took up his appointment. The plea fails. The Tribunal observes that, far from discriminating, the impugned decision corrects an existing element of inequality and if there remains inequality it is due to the terms of the complainant's appointment, which were not challenged within the prescribed time limits.
Keywords
effective date; equal treatment; amendment to the rules; enforcement; provision; grade; step; professional experience; reckoning; seniority; appointment; date
Consideration 7
Extract:
In this case, the Office took the view that the Council's new guidelines on how professional experience should count in the reckoning of seniority did not apply to the complainant. "The EPO was therefore under no duty to inform the complainant of the guidelines or to explain to him how his own position differed from that of staff members to whom the guidelines applied."
Keywords
decision; organisation's duties; duty to inform; administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; provision; professional experience; reckoning; seniority; executive body
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Council's 'guidelines', inasmuch as they set objective and binding criteria and do not offer mere guidance, are binding on the President insofar as they do not allow him discretionary authority."
Keywords
decision; general decision; administrative instruction; enforcement; discretion; executive head; executive body; binding character
| 
