Judgment No. 3172
Decision
1. The Commission shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 15,000 euros.
2. It shall also pay her 4,000 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"A decision taken for an improper purpose is an abuse of authority. It follows that when a complainant challenges a discretionary decision, he or she by necessary implication also challenges the validity of the reasons underpinning that decision. In this respect, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the post to determine whether the impugned decision was tainted by abuse of authority."
Keywords
decision; competence of tribunal; evidence; breach; abolition of post; discretion; misuse of authority; abuse of power
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."
Keywords
moral injury; evidence; disclosure of evidence; general principle; due process; organisation's duties; breach; procedural flaw
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; abolition of post; non-renewal of contract
| 
