Judgment No. 2112
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"A decision affecting an official will always be preceded by administrative formalities, but it will become binding on the organisation only when it is notified to the official, in the manner prescribed by the organisation (see Judgment 1560, under 9). Notification may also take some other form as long as it can be inferred from it that the organisation intended to notify the decision. But information about the formalities themselves is clearly not notification. In the interests of clarity it is desirable, and indeed often the practice, for the person concerned by some future decision to be given such information. But to see it as notification of a decision would be wrong and could lead to serious confusion."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1560
Keywords
decision; formal requirements; duty to inform; administrative instruction; binding character; condition; date; definition; effect; purport
Consideration 7(c)
Extract:
Subject to the conditions laid down in the case law, an organisation can, even where there is no decision, be bound by a promise or assurances given to a staff member.
In this case, the fact that the complainant was given a copy of the memorandum of 9 June 1999 clearly did not imply a promise that the formalities would culminate in a decision. There were still uncertainties, particularly regarding the 2000-2001 biennium: there might well be a new Director-General, the budget had not yet been adopted, and a post had to be identified.
In his further brief the complainant tries to prove that the words "foreseen for Mr [...]" were written opposite a specific post in a budget document, or a copy of it kept by the Administration, which the complainant came across by chance. The Organization denies, and the complainant fails to prove, that that was so. In any event, it is immaterial for the reasons stated above. Being for internal administrative purposes only, the document would not constitute evidence of either a firm commitment or a promise by the Organization to appoint the complainant.
The complainant has produced no other evidence from which the existence of a promise to appoint him can be
inferred (even if both he and the former Director-General wanted him to be appointed).
Consequently, he may rely neither on the existence of a contract for a period of two years nor a promise that such a
contract would be concluded.
Keywords
good faith; promise; duty of care
|
