Judgment No. 1101
1. THE COMPLAINTS AND THE APPLICATIONS TO INTERVENE ARE DISMISSED.
2. EUROCONTROL SHALL PAY EACH OF THE COMPLAINANTS 5,000 BELGIAN FRANCS IN COSTS.
The complainants, who are employees of Eurocontrol, seek the quashing of an Office Notice insofar as it informs staff that expenses arising from trace-element therapy (oligo-elements), aromatherapy and phytotherapy are not to be refunded. The Agency pleas that the complaint is irreceivable. "It is worth pointing out that in Judgment 961 [...] of 27 June 1989 the Tribunal held that it was 'competent only to entertain individual and actual disputes' and would not make prior rulings of general purport. Again in Judgment 1081 [...] of 29 January 1991 it affirmed that no appeal would lie against a general decision provided that it was such as needed in all cases to be followed by a challengeable individual one."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 961, 1081
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; cause of action; competence of tribunal; administrative instruction; refund; refusal; medical expenses; health insurance
The complainants are challenging an Office Notice that merely informs them that expenses incurred for certain forms of treatment will not be refunded. "There will be a decision challengeable under Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute only when Eurocontrol has, in accordance with its rules, refused a staff member refund of the cost of a particular sort of treatment. The Tribunal will then rule according to the criteria it stated in Judgment 1088 of 29 January 1991, taking medical advice if need be. It may not make a prior ruling of general application to the sorts of treatment covered by the Office Notice."
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1088
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; competence of tribunal; administrative instruction; refund; medical expenses; health insurance
The complainants are challenging a general decision. They "cannot yet show any cause of action and their complaints must fail because they are irreceivable. [...] Since, however, before altering its stand the organisation directly encouraged them to file the present complaints, it is only reasonable that it should bear the costs".
general decision; receivability of the complaint; cause of action; exception; costs