Judgment No. 3357
Decision
1. The decision of the Director General of Eurocontrol determining the pensionable years contested by the complainant and the decisions dismissing his request for a review of that decision and his internal complaint are set aside.
2. The case shall be referred back to Eurocontrol in order that the pensionable years in question may be determined by the method prescribed in consideration 22.
3. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 2,000 euros for moral injury.
4. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 1,000 euros.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; pension entitlements
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
"[The Organisation] took the view that, in accordance with the principle that the Tribunal’s judgments produce their effects only between the parties, the complainant, who was neither a complainant nor an intervener in any of the cases giving rise to those three judgments, could not rely on the rights which those judgments conferred on their beneficiaries.
This reasoning per se is certainly entirely consistent with the Tribunal’s long-established case law, as confirmed, for example, in similar cases in Judgments 2463, under 13, 3002, under 14 and 15, or 3181, under 9 and 10."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2463, 3002, 3181
Keywords
effect
Consideration 15
Extract:
"As for Eurocontrol’s duty of care, it plainly does not mean that the Organisation is obliged to exempt one of its officials from a time bar or to grant him an advantage to which he is not entitled."
Keywords
duty of care
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[T]he complainant manifestly has no reason to insinuate that the decisions concerning him were prompted by a wish to discriminate on account of his role as a staff representative.
Contrary to the view apparently taken by the complainant, who merely comments in this respect that “it [cannot] be proven” that his activities in that capacity were not borne in mind by the Organisation, or that “the possibility [cannot] be ruled out” that they were, the existence of such bias, which would constitute a misuse of authority, may not be presumed. It is incumbent upon the official who intends to rely on a plea of this nature to furnish at least some prima facie evidence in support thereof; mere allegations which are moreover purely speculative are immaterial here (see, for example, Judgments 1775, under 7, 2019, under 24, 2927, under 16, or 3182, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 2019, 2927, 3182
Keywords
equal treatment; staff representative
|
