Judgment No. 1270
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In accordance with Articles 106 to 113 [of the EPO Service Regulations] the filing of an appeal presupposes that the organisation has already taken a decision that adversely affects the staff member or that he has submitted to it a request for a decision he is entitled to under the Regulations. So the essence of the prescribed procedure is that it affords a means of having a decision reversed. The staff member may not secure a right of appeal by putting forward a claim to compensation that is unconnected with an express or implied decision challengeable under Article 106."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 106 TO 113 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords
decision; express decision; implied decision; cause of action; staff regulations and rules; application for quashing
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant's various claims, put forward first in his internal appeal of 19 July 1991 and then in this complaint, are unconnected with the appeal procedure provided for in the Regulations. Article 28 confers on the staff member the right to assistance against any attacks a third party makes on him by reason of his office or duties: its purpose is not to settle a dispute that has arisen within the Organisation itself. In this case the complainant is objecting to actions by several senior EPO officers which they were competent to take and which were challengeable only under the appeal procedure set out in the Service Regulations. In fact this complaint is just an attempt to revive false rows he carried on with management until he himself realised what his own behaviour required and duly resigned. As for the quarrel with the Organisation over his staff union activity, it suffices to refer to Judgment 1269 [...].
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 28 of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1269
Keywords
staff regulations and rules; breach
| 
