Judgment No. 2092
Decision
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE ORGANISATION SHALL PROVIDE THE RELIEF SET OUT IN 11 ABOVE.
3. THE ORGANISATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 10,000 EUROS IN DAMAGES.
4. IT SHALL PAY HER 5,000 EUROS IN COSTS.
5. ALL HER OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"It is elementary that where a reason is given for taking a decision which is adverse to the interests of a staff member the organisation is held to that reason and cannot later seek to justify its action on other grounds."
Keywords
grounds; cause of action; general principle; organisation's duties
Consideration 7
Extract:
"One of the tests which the Tribunal has developed over the years to determine whether or not a post has truly been abolished is to ask whether or not the 'abolition' has resulted in a reduction of the number of staff in the affected department. (See, for example, Judgment 139 [...].) If it has not, the presumption is that all that has taken place is a redistribution of functions among existing posts [...] and not the abolition of one or more posts".
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 139
Keywords
iloat; case law; post; abolition of post; reorganisation; staff reduction; judicial review; consequence; criteria; definition
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Keywords
decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeals body; recommendation; report; organisation's duties; executive head; acceptance; advisory opinion; difference; refusal; impugned decision
| 
