Judgment No. 4020
1. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral damages.
2. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 3,000 euros.
3. All other claims in the fifth complaint are dismissed, as is the sixth complaint.
The complainant challenges the denial of his second request to benefit from the temporary early termination of service scheme and the implied decision to reject his claim for compensation.
complaint allowed; compensatory allowance
It is well settled that complaints may be joined if they raise the same issues of law and the material facts upon which the claims rest are the same such that the Tribunal can deliver a single ruling (see Judgment 3427, under 10). In the instant case, in his fifth complaint the complainant seeks inter alia the setting aside of the decision to dismiss his new request to take advantage of the ETS scheme, and in his sixth complaint he claims damages for the unlawful denial of that request, amongst other relief. As the two cases are clearly interconnected, it is convenient to join them in the interests of the sound administration of justice.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3427
In accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”.
[I]t is well settled that this rule, that internal means of redress must first be exhausted, does not apply to a claim for moral damages, which constitute a natural form of relief which the Tribunal has the power to grant in all circumstances (see, for example, Judgments 3080, under 25, 2779, under 7, and 2609, under 10). The claim for compensation under this head is therefore receivable.
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2609, 2779, 2779, 3080
moral injury; internal remedies exhausted
As stated in Judgments 3034, under 33, and 2459, under 9, when it deals with a claim, an administrative authority must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those applicable at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply.
If, as a result of the Tribunal setting aside an administrative decision, the competent authority must take a new decision on a claim presented to it, the Administration must base that decision on the legal and factual circumstances existing on the date on which it takes its new decision. Indeed, in that situation, none of the exceptions to the principle established by the case law cited above applies.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 3034
decision quashed; applicable law