Judgment No. 3887
Decision
1. The decision of 21 November 2013 is set aside in the part regarding confirmation of dismissal for misconduct in accordance with Article 93 of the Service Regulations, as is the same part of the decision of 6 September 2013.
2. The case is sent back to the EPO in accordance with consideration 13.
3. The EPO shall pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral damages.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; misconduct; health reasons; disciplinary procedure
Consideration 7
Extract:
The EPO raises the question of the receivability of the present complaint, noting that the complainant insists on impugning the President’s decision of 6 September 2013 instead of the actual final decision of 21 November 2013. The Tribunal finds that as the complainant filed a request for review of the 6 September decision in accordance with Article 109 of the Service Regulations and has received the final decision of 21 November, which is included in the documentation provided in this case, it may treat the complaint as impugning the actual final decision of 21 November 2013.The complaint is therefore receivable.
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; final decision
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant’s refusal to fulfill his obligations with regard to his work as an examiner is well-established. However, the President’s decision to dismiss the complainant under Article 93(2)(f) of the Service Regulations is vitiated by the fact that neither the President, nor the Disciplinary Committee could have made a proper assessment of the allegations without taking into account whether the complainant acted intentionally, and in control of his faculties, or if the complainant suffered from a mental illness that prevented him from behaving in accordance with his obligations as a permanent employee.
Keywords
intention of parties; termination of employment; misconduct; health reasons; disciplinary measure; duty of care; termination of employment for health reasons
Consideration 16
Extract:
[I]n the absence of an expert psychiatric opinion that the complainant was not suffering from a psychiatric illness, it would be unlawful for the President to dismiss the complainant for misconduct, which, in this case, involves intentional behaviour, though he plainly could for unsatisfactory service.
Keywords
misconduct; health reasons
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant’s assertion that there was a lack of duly established delegations of authority is unsubstantiated. The complainant has not provided any evidence showing that any official had acted ultra vires.
Keywords
burden of proof; delegated authority
Considerations 13 and 16
Extract:
[T]he principle of due process and the duty of care require the Disciplinary Committee, in accordance with Article 101(3) of the Service Regulations (which provides that "[i]f the Disciplinary Committee requires further information concerning the facts complained of or the circumstances in which they arose, it may order an inquiry in which each side can submit its case and reply to the case of the other side") to order a medical assessment of the complainant by an expert, and the convening of a Medical Committee if necessary. The medical expert(s) shall also take into consideration all documents in the file submitted to the Tribunal.
[...]
The case must be sent back to the EPO which will order a medical assessment of the complainant and, if necessary, the convening of a Medical Committee.
Keywords
case sent back to organisation
| 
