Judgment No. 3620
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to retroactively implement the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
cause of action; complaint dismissed
"[The complainant] requests that her fourth complaint be joined with her third complaint. However, it is appropriate to deal with them separately because the legal issues raised are sufficiently different to warrant their separate consideration. No order joining the complaints should be made."
"The argument advanced by the EPO on the question of receivability is comparatively straightforward. The point made is that decision CA/D 15/12 involved the establishment of a regulatory legal framework which required implementation by the President through individual decisions. The EPO refers to a line of judgments of the Tribunal to the effect that a complainant can impugn a decision of this character only if it directly affects her or him. A general decision cannot be impugned by a staff member unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her or him. The EPO refers to a number of authorities including a comparatively recent judgment, Judgment 3291, under 8. The complainant seeks to answer this argument in her rejoinder by saying that she was directly and adversely affected by the decision. However she does not point to any decision implementing CA/D 15/12 directly affecting her either after the decision was made on 26 October 2012 or during the period of its retroactive operation. That decision concerned the transitional measure applicable to individuals already in receipt of an invalidity pension at the time when the new scheme came into effect on 1 January 2008. The complainant was not in the class affected by the transitional measure. Consequently, the EPO’s argument should be accepted and the complaint should be dismissed as irreceivable."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3291
general decision; cause of action
"The EPO seeks a costs order against the complainant on the basis that she continued to pursue her complaint after Judgment 3291 was drawn to her attention in correspondence from the EPO’s lawyers in May 2014. The Tribunal concludes that such an order should not be made in the circumstances of the case, particularly where the complainant had commenced proceedings (on 8 July 2013) before the relevant decision had been published (5 February 2014)."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3291