Judgment No. 3429
Decision
1. The EPO shall pay the complainant 2,000 euros in damages as detailed under consideration 7.
2. It shall also pay him 250 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
4. The three applications to intervene are dismissed.
Summary
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but awarded damages to the complainant because of the delay in the appeals procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; moral injury; intervention; administrative delay; removal expenses
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant offers no justification for his application for oral proceedings. The Tribunal, having examined the written submissions and their annexes, finds that they are sufficient to make an informed decision. Considering this, and in accordance with consistent case law, the Tribunal disallows the complainant’s application."
Keywords
oral proceedings
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal points out that a claim concerning the excessive length of the appeal proceedings is, by its very nature, one that could not have been raised before the IAC (see Judgment 2744, under 6). Thus, the claim is receivable [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2744
Keywords
internal appeal; delay
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The EPO was within its rights to set a reasonable maximum amount for the reimbursement of removal costs, based on an estimate provided or obtained."
Keywords
removal expenses
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that, according to the above provisions, the EPO has a duty to verify the appropriateness of the estimates provided. In the present case, as the estimates provided by the complainant were drastically higher than the average cost of a removal between the Netherlands and Italy, the EPO was required to investigate further, which it did by enquiring about the reasons for the higher price. The EPO also became aware of a much cheaper estimate, which the complainant had requested and received from another removal company and which was based on the same inventory list, but which he had refused. Contrary to the IAC minority opinion, the EPO was not required to choose one of the estimates submitted by the complainant. It is allowed to request additional estimates when necessary and to approve a ceiling amount, based on an actual estimate, for the reimbursement of removal costs.
A provision such as Article 81 should not be interpreted literally if such a literal interpretation frustrates the purpose and object of the provision. The purpose and object of Article 81 is to ensure that a staff member is paid an adequate but not excessive amount for removal costs. Moreover, even interpreted literally, there is a condition precedent to reimbursement of removal costs, namely prior approval of an estimate. In the present case, there was no such prior approval of the amount now claimed."
Keywords
removal expenses
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the appeal was not a particularly complicated one, the complainant was not responsible in any way for the delay in the proceedings, and the EPO has provided no justification whatsoever for the delay in submitting its position paper. Thus, the Tribunal finds that this constitutes an excessive delay in the procedure and merits an award of damages [...]."
Keywords
internal appeal; delay
|
