Judgment No. 4119
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. The applications to intervene are dismissed.
3. The EPO’s counterclaim for costs is dismissed.
The complainant contests the decision of the President of the Office to amend the wording of a circular in respect of the age limit for the payment of a dependants’ allowance.
general decision; decision quashed; allowance; dependent child; education expenses; complaint dismissed
The Tribunal’s case law consistently holds that a member of staff cannot challenge, by way of a complaint in the Tribunal, a general decision unless and until it is applied to that staff member with adverse legal consequences (see Judgment 4016, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). That case law is rooted in the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to deal with disputes concerning, relevantly, the alleged non-observance of the Staff Regulations or of the official’s terms of appointment. In a case such as the present there would have been, at least arguably, a non-observance of the Service Regulations at the moment the complainant was not paid the allowance because of the age of his children. That might have been so because, amongst other reasons, the amendment was not lawfully made or the Service Regulations, properly construed, conferred the allowance beyond the time identified in the amended Circular. However before the payment of the allowance ceased, no issue would arise about the non-observance of the Service Regulations. In the result, this complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4016
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; cause of action; allowance
Judgment 3291 has been given in related proceedings so the request for joinder has become moot.
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3291
joinder; claim moot
Given that this complaint will be dismissed because it is irreceivable, the applications to intervene will also be dismissed.
intervention; intervention by an individual not admitted