Judgment No. 3191
1. The impugned decisions of 15 July 2009 are set aside.
2. The EPO shall pay the three complainants moral damages in the amount of 500 euros each.
3. It shall also pay them 500 euros each in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.
"The EPO’s position grounded on a distinction between an appointment and a promotion is fundamentally flawed. An appointment is simply the assignment of an individual to a particular position or post. A promotion is the assignment of an individual to a higher position or rank. The fact that a so called appointment process is used to make a selection or that the assignment is called an appointment does not exclude the fact that it may also be a promotion by virtue of the fact that it also involves the attainment of a higher position or rank or, in this context, grade."
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; decision quashed; vacancy; promotion; promotion board; appointment; competition; selection board; vacancy notice; executive head; flaw
"Regarding the contents of the vacancy notice, the confusion, to the extent there was some confusion among potential applicants, involved confusion about the interpretation of the Service Regulations and not the interpretation of the content of the vacancy notice itself. However, in these circumstances, where the EPO was aware of the confusion surrounding the interpretation of its Regulations, it was incumbent on the Administration to clarify the requirements for the position in the vacancy notice."
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; formal requirements; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; vacancy; vacancy notice