Judgment No. 4045
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant, who had worked at the EPO as a consultant, asks the Tribunal to confirm that he was employed under the conditions applicable to permanent employees or, alternatively, to auxiliary staff.
ratione personae; non official; complaint dismissed
The complaint will be dismissed. The foregoing shows that the complainant was an independent contractor employed by the private company to provide the subject services to the EPO. He had no employment connection with the EPO deriving from a contract of employment or from the status of a permanent employee (see Judgment 2649, under 8). He was not an EPO employee or an auxiliary staff member. His employment relationship was with the private company. He never belonged to the category of employees to whom the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the Office or the Conditions of Employment for Auxiliary Staff applied. There are therefore no similarities between his employment relationships with the EPO which would bring him within the principles stated in Judgment 3090, considerations 4 to 7, for example. In that judgment, the Tribunal held that it had competence, under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to hear the complaint of a person who had been employed under successive short-term contracts for seven years with the World Intellectual Property Organization.
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2649, 3090
competence of tribunal; ratione personae; non official