Judgment No. 3534

• Organization: European Patent Organisation (EPO)
• Date: 30.06.2015
• Original: English
• Judges: Barbagallo, Hansen, Moore
• Full judgment text - Full judgment text (french)

Decision

The complaints are dismissed.

Summary

The two complainants, who were members of the General Advisory Committee, contest the nomination of the Chairman of the Committee for the year 2010.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

joinder; advisory body; appointment; complaint dismissed

Considerations 2 & 5

Extract:

The issue is a confined one. The individual appointed as Chairman was a principal director employed on contract. The complainants argue and the EPO disputes, that the applicable regulatory provisions precluded an employee on contract being appointed to this position.
[...]
However, Article 38(2) of the Service Regulations empowered the President to appoint the Chairman and the power was unconfined as to who might be appointed. While Article 2(2) of the Service Regulations is not a model of clear drafting, it is tolerably clear that under the Service Regulations both permanent employees and employees on contract referred to in Article 1 could have been either members of, amongst other bodies, the GAC or chairmen of those bodies. Article 1 made clear that the Service Regulations apply to both permanent employees and “principal directors of the Office employed on contract”. Thus the Service Regulations established that a principal director on contract could be a member of the GAC or appointed as Chairman of the GAC.

Keywords

cause of action; member of an internal body