Judgment No. 2125
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF 28 JUNE 2001 IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE AGENCY SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED AS INDICATED UNDER 7.
3. THE COMPLAINANT'S PENSION RIGHTS SHALL BE RESTORED FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 AUGUST 2000 TO 31 JULY 2001.
4. THE AGENCY SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 2,000 EUROS IN COSTS.
The complainant's request to have his contract extended beyond retirement age was not allowed. "On the merits, the Agency is undoubtedly right in pointing out that the Director General has discretion in the matter, over which the Tribunal has only a limited power of review. This discretion enables the Agency to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [...] Although the Director General can determine the interest of the Agency, his decisions must be based on clear and coherent reasons. In this case, the reason given - that the request for an extension contained no indication as to whether any of the criteria [on the basis of which he may authorise such an extension] had been satisfied - is not valid, and the reason based on 'rejuvenation' of the staff is too general to constitute a sufficient justification for the refusal of the complainant's request." The Tribunal considers that "this reason is not in itself reprehensible, but it could be used to justify a systematic refusal to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [By setting out the criteria] the [Agency] established for itself a number of rules which it must apply."
decision; grounds; organisation; exception; iloat; organisation's duties; patere legem; written rule; contract; retirement; age limit; judicial review; discretion; executive head; organisation's interest; criteria; definition; refusal; request by a party; official; extension beyond retirement age