Judgment No. 2357
The complaint is dismissed.
"It was said in Judgments 1835, 1836 and 1837 that the application of Article 71(2)[regarding the conditions of award of an education allowance] 'is at the discretion of the President of the Office'. It is not strictly accurate to describe a decision as to the application of Article 71(2) as discretionary. The question whether a particular school or university corresponds to a 'child's educational stage' is essentially a question of fact, albeit one that may, in some circumstances, permit of a value judgment. However, because of the nature of that question, a decision under Article 71(2) is subject to limited review on the same grounds as a discretionary decision properly so called. Thus, it will be reviewed only for procedural error, mistake of fact or law, the drawing of a clearly mistaken conclusion or misuse of authority. In particular, this Tribunal will not substitute its view of the facts for that reached by the President."
Organization rules reference: Article 71(2) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1835, 1836, 1837
decision; grounds; case law; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; interpretation; provision; allowance; education expenses; judicial review; discretion; executive head; limits; procedural flaw; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; condition; same
"Where a person seeks to bring himself or herself within an exception to a general rule - here, the rule that an education allowance is not payable to persons serving in their own country - it is for that person to establish that he or she falls within the exception."
nationality; exception; burden of proof; written rule; duty station; allowance; education expenses; condition; official