Judgment No. 1968
Decision
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO 1,000 EUROS IN COSTS.
3. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Receivability falls to be determined at the time that a complaint is filed, not at some later date. As at 29 July 1999 the complainant had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. He had filed his appeal in time. Approximately a year later he wrote to enquire about its progress and had been informed that the administration had done nothing but would move forward as soon as possible. He filed his complaint just over four months later having heard nothing further from the administration. At that time almost twenty months had elapsed since the original challenged decision had been published. The administration's plea that it had a heavy backlog of internal appeals to deal with may be a reason for the inordinate delay, but it is not an excuse. As at 29 July 1999, it was simply not reasonable to expect the complainant to wait any longer to see even the beginning of the end of the internal appeal procedure. If the organisation was overloaded with internal appeals, it was for it to remedy the situation rather than expect the complainant to bear the consequences."
Keywords
complaint; absence of final decision; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; administrative delay; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit; delay; reasonable time
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The [...] ground of alleged irreceivability[,that the decision to promote a colleague did not adversely affect the complainant,] is [...] untenable. [The two staff members] were at the same grade, in the same career stream, and both are entitled to expect that promotions will only be made fairly and objectively, based on merit and in accordance with law."
Keywords
decision; receivability of the complaint; cause of action; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; career; promotion
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
"In the present case, the President sought, but failed to obtain, the Promotion Board's approval for his proposal to promote Mr C. While the President clearly has a residual discretion not to make promotions which the Board recommends, he may only make promotions in accordance with the Board's recommendations. Since the Board declined to recommend Mr C. for promotion, his promotion was irregular. [...] Furthermore, as the appointing authority, it was clearly inappropriate for the President, having urged the Promotion Board to treat Mr C. as a special case, to then disregard the Board's refusal to recommend the promotion. The decision cannot stand."
Keywords
exception; promotion; promotion board; discretion; executive head; flaw; advisory opinion; refusal
| 
