Judgment No. 4281
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise.
promotion; complaint dismissed
According to the Tribunal’s settled case law, “while every official should have some prospect of advancement within an organisation and may therefore legitimately hope to move up to a higher position one day, there is no automatic right to promotion. This right is limited, on the one hand, by the official’s seniority, qualifications, skills and performance and, on the other, by the Organisation’s administrative structure and budgetary resources” (see Judgments 3404, under 8, and 3495, under 11).
According to the same case law, an organisation enjoys wide discretion in staff promotion. For that reason, its decisions in that area are subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will intervene in such a decision only if it was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 2835, under 5, 3279, under 11, 4019, under 2, and 4066, under 3).
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2835, 3279, 3404, 3495, 4019, 4066
[T]he complainant submits that he was deprived of an opportunity to be promoted for the sole reason that he exercised a part-time staff union mandate. The grievance he thereby expresses should, in the Tribunal’s view, be regarded as an allegation of misuse of authority.
In Judgment 3357, under 16, the Tribunal found that “the existence of [...] bias, which would constitute a misuse of authority, may not be presumed. It is incumbent upon the official who intends to rely on a plea of this nature to furnish at least some prima facie evidence in support thereof; mere allegations which are moreover purely speculative are immaterial here (see, for example, Judgments 1775, under 7, 2019, under 24, 2927, under 16, or 3182, under 9)”.
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1775, 2019, 2927, 3182, 3357
staff union activity; misuse of authority; personal prejudice; abuse of power
[T]he complainant alleges that the Director General did not state reasons for the decision [...] dismissing his internal complaint. He contends that a mere reference to the opinion of two members of the Joint Committee for Disputes does not constitute a relevant statement of reasons that allows an objective assessment of the legality of the impugned decision.
The Tribunal notes that out of the four members of the Joint Committee for Disputes, two took the view that the complainant’s internal complaint should be dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that the procedure provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Rule of Application No. 4 had been followed. In stating, in the decision [...], that he “share[d] the opinion of [those members]”, the Director General endorsed their reasoning. The plea alleging a failure to state reasons is therefore unfounded.
motivation of final decision