Judgment No. 3660
Decision
1. The decision of 17 March 2014 is set aside.
2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros.
3. Eurocontrol shall also pay him 5,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his transfer, complaining that he was ousted from his job, without notice or prior consultation, and assigned to a “fictitious job”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; transfer
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, the reasons for any decision having an adverse effect, such as a transfer decision, must be stated. The reasons may be contained in the notice given to the official of the decision or in some other document. The Tribunal also accepts that the reasons may be provided in prior proceedings, or orally, or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge. (See Judgments 1590, under 7, 1757, under 5, and 3316, under 7.)
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1590, 1757, 3316
Keywords
transfer; motivation
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the reasons given to the complainant in this document to justify the decision to transfer him are confined to very general references to the applicable provisions. Such references are, however, meaningless if they are not accompanied by more precise information enabling the official and, as the case may be, the judge to comprehend the real grounds underpinning the decision taken, especially in the case of a measure, such as that of transferring an official, which should be hedged with safeguards.
Keywords
transfer; motivation
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to the case law, for the sake of proper management and mutual trust, an organisation must treat its staff fairly. To this end, it must give an official the opportunity of a fair hearing. (See Judgments 2226, under 20, and 1234, under 19.)
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1234, 2226
Keywords
transfer
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is plain that the manner in which the decision was conveyed to the complainant, who had been in the service of the Organisation for nearly 20 years at the material time and whose excellent performance had been recognised by it, was likely to hurt, shock and upset him.
Keywords
humiliation; notification
Consideration 7
Extract:
It must be recalled that the Tribunal “has consistently stressed the serious nature of allegations of harassment in the workplace and the need for international organisations to investigate such allegations promptly and thoroughly. This is a function of the organisation’s duty of care to its staff members to uphold their dignity. […] It is in relation to this obligation that the Tribunal […] stated that international organisations have to ensure that an internal body that is charged with investigating and reporting on claims of harassment is properly functioning.” (See Judgment 3337, under 11 and 12.)
Eurocontrol’s duty of care required it to forward the harassment complaint on its own initiative to the bodies which, it says, are competent to entertain it, or at least to provide the complainant with guidance as to the procedure to be followed, since the legal possibilities it mentions are far from clear to the servants concerned. In failing to do so, the Organisation neglected its duties.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3337
Keywords
harassment
|
