Judgment No. 3494
Decision
1. The decision of 27 March 2012 rejecting the complainant’s candidature and the implied decision dismissing her internal complaint against that decision are quashed.
2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 5,000 euros in compensation for moral injury.
3. It shall likewise pay her costs in the amount of 5,000 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; competence; decision quashed; appointment; candidate; delegated authority
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that when impugning an individual decision that concerns a staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure forming the legal basis of that decision (see Judgments 1000, under 12, 1329, under 7, 2129, under 7, or 3427, under 29)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1000, 1329, 2129, 3427
Keywords
general decision
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"[Eurocontrol] submits that, when the complaint was filed, it concerned a post that no longer existed. Referring to the precedent established by the Tribunal in Judgment 1357, under 11, it asserts that Eurocontrol was “free to withdraw a notice of vacancy at any time”. In its view, the complaint is therefore without object and must be dismissed as irreceivable.
The Tribunal considers that, even if Eurocontrol did in fact withdraw the vacancy notice, given that it did so after the complainant had been excluded from the competition procedure and after she had lodged her internal complaint, that complaint did have substance at the time it was filed and the decision to dismiss it produced effects open to review by the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1357
Keywords
no cause of action
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal has consistently held, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1549, under 9, 2163, under 1, or 3209, under 11)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1549, 2163, 3209
Keywords
no cause of action; selection procedure
Consideration 16
Extract:
"In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, in order to be valid, a delegation of authority must have some basis in the rules. Failing that, any action will be ultra vires (see, for example, Judgment 1696, under 5, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1696
Keywords
delegated authority
Consideration 19
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not award the complainant the compensation she claims for loss of opportunity because, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations in force, Eurocontrol officials may not in principle be promoted to a higher grade bracket except through a competition (see Judgment 3404, under 8)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3404
Keywords
selection procedure; loss of opportunity
|
