Judgment No. 1659
Decision
The complaints are dismissed.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The defendant strongly objects to the complainants' producing privileged documents which it says they should never have disclosed without leave from the Secretary-General and which should therefore be discounted. The complainants explain that when still on the staff they were regularly sent such documents. So it is hard to see what is wrong with their relying thereon in pleadings that are confidential anyway."
Keywords
iloat; submissions; evidence; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; executive head; acceptance
Consideration 12
Extract:
Having lost three out of seven members and having a "working budget that was but a fraction of what it had been before, it was therefore only reasonable for [EFTA] to consider overhauling the Secretariat and go ahead with the abolition of units and then of posts. [...] It was the EFTA Council of seven member States that resolved to wind up the Secretariat, pay off the permanent employees and let fixed-term appointments run out. It saw that as the only proper course because of political uncertainty and lack of money to pay the staff after 30 June 1995. The seven States also wanted to safeguard the freedom of the four remaining members to set up a smaller Secretariat which matched the smaller membership. There was no mistake of law in the Council's reasoning."
Keywords
organisation; member state; separation from service; abolition of post; budgetary reasons; reorganisation; non-renewal of contract; termination of employment; judicial review; discretion
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants "plead breach of Regulation 12.2(b) which confers priority for re-employment on permanent employees whose posts had to be abolished. But since all the posts were abolished the Association had no choice in the matter and nothing to offer the redundant staff but the opportunity of applying for jobs in the new Secretariat."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: EFTA STAFF REGULATION 12.2(B)
Keywords
exception; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; contract; competition; permanent appointment; separation from service; abolition of post; reassignment; priority; reorganisation; termination of employment
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants "did not go to the Board until [...] six-and-a-half months after they had had notice of dismissal. The [objection to receivability] would no doubt succeed if the rules set a time limit for appeal, but they do not. It is perhaps a pity that the complainants tarried until the very eve of dismissal. But they did expressly reserve their rights when acknowledging receipt of notice of dismissal, and they were hoping until the last day for a satisfactory outcome. So it is hardly arguable that some time limit which was not even in the rules was running against them."
Keywords
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit; exception; time bar; staff regulations and rules; no provision
Consideration 10
Extract:
EFTA pleads that the complainants "ought to have inferred rejection after sixty days [after lodging their internal appeals]. They then had ninety days under Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute in which to file complaints." It argues that since the complaints were filed "over 150 days after the notification of their appeals to the Board, they were out of time. The plea [...] fails. although there was no report from the Board within the sixty days, the reason was that it had never been set up. Actually it never was. [...] The time limit of ninety days began only [on] the date at which they received the Secretary-General's letters [...] telling them that the Board could not be set up and they were free under Regulation 41(b) to appeal to the Tribunal. The complaints are therefore not out of time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII (2) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 41(B) OF EFTA STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords
complaint; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; start of time limit; iloat statute
| 
