Judgment No. 4555
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests the decision not to pay him the additional installation allowance in respect of his second child following his transfer to The Hague.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
installation allowance; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
The EPO submits that the claim for “[a]ny other costs the Tribunal considers appropriate” is irreceivable for lack of basic clarity. This aspect of the claim for costs is dismissed as the complainant has not articulated any basis for such an award.
Keywords
claim
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s reasoning in Judgment 1820 bears out the general principle of interpretation in the case law stated, for example, in consideration 5(b) of Judgment 2258, that statutory provisions must be interpreted in such a way that their true meaning is preserved, taking into account, inter alia, the actual letter of the provision, its origin, its aim and its place within the legal framework of an organisation, and without necessarily dwelling on inaccurate or inappropriate terms (see also Judgment 1456, under 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456, 1820, 2258
Keywords
interpretation
Consideration 10
Extract:
Returning to the terms of Article 73 and addressing the specific question of the circumstances in which the additional payment is to be paid, the answer lays in the concluding words of Article 73(2). It is relatively clear that the word “where” is, in substance, the identification of “when”. That is to say it identifies when the entitlement to the additional payment arises. The entitlement arises when the staff member takes up residence and by reference to his circumstances at that time. In this case, the complainant’s circumstances were that he had one child only and was thus entitled to the additional allowance of half a month’s basic salary, and not entitled to the additional allowance in respect of his second child. It is true that the payment will not actually be paid to a staff member on probation until the probationary period has concluded, but this does not alter the fact that the actual entitlement is ascertained at the time a probationary staff member takes up residence.
Keywords
installation allowance
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant submits that he is entitled to the additional installation allowance because there existed a “well-established common procedure” in the EPO that the allowance had been treated as accruing at any time during the probationary period. However, according to the case law, a practice cannot become legally binding where, as in the present case, it contravenes specific rules which are already in force (see, for example, Judgment 4026, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4026
Keywords
practice
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant contests the award of 250 euros and claims 1,000 euros in moral damages for the delay instead. However, as he does not explain why the amount that he was awarded was insufficient, his claim will be dismissed.
Keywords
moral damages; delay in internal procedure
| 
