ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database

Search judgments by word

You searched for:
Words: eurocontrol
Total judgments found: 289

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >

  • Judgment 4473
    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to recognise his son’s condition as a “serious illness” within the meaning of the provisions governing reimbursement of medical expenses.
  • Judgment 4472
    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to appoint an official to his former post.
  • Judgment 4471
    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
  • Judgment 4470
    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns Eurocontrol’s decision to stop payment, as from 1 August 2016, of the education allowance and the dependent child allowance which he was receiving in respect of his daughter.
  • Judgment 4469
    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which were allegedly unduly paid to him.
  • Judgment 4401
    132nd Session, 2021
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her application for the reimbursement of medical expenses.
    • ... Eurocontrol 132nd Session Judgment No. 4401 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the seventh complaint filed by Ms N. E. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 17 January 2018 and corrected on 26 January, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 22 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 September 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 17 January 2018 and corrected on 26 January, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 22 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 September 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the ...
    • ... Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. E. (No. 7) v. Eurocontrol 132nd Session Judgment No. 4401 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the seventh complaint filed by Ms N. E. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 17 January 2018 and corrected on 26 January, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 22 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 September 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her application for the reimbursement ...
    • ... translation, the French text alone being authoritative. E. (No. 7) v. Eurocontrol 132nd Session Judgment No. 4401 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the seventh complaint filed by Ms N. E. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 17 January 2018 and corrected on 26 January, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 22 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 September 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her application for the reimbursement of medical expenses. The complainant is an official assigned to the Organisation's ...
    • ... The complainant seeks the setting aside of the decision of 7 November 2017 and the reimbursement of all the acupuncture sessions prescribed by her doctor and the expenses incurred for her treatment. She claims interest on these sums at the statutory rate increased by 10 percentage points from the date of this complaint. In addition, the complainant claims 8,000 euros in moral damages and 5,000 euros in costs. Judgment No. 4401 3 Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject all the complainant's claims as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 7 November 2017 in which the Principal Director of Resources of Eurocontrol rejected her claim for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to five acupuncture sessions delivered by Ms Q., who holds a degree in traditional Chinese medicine and is a member of the Belgian Acupunctors Federation (BAF), a professional body recognised ...
    • ... claims interest on these sums at the statutory rate increased by 10 percentage points from the date of this complaint. In addition, the complainant claims 8,000 euros in moral damages and 5,000 euros in costs. Judgment No. 4401 3 Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject all the complainant's claims as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 7 November 2017 in which the Principal Director of Resources of Eurocontrol rejected her claim for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to five acupuncture sessions delivered by Ms Q., who holds a degree in traditional Chinese medicine and is a member of the Belgian Acupunctors Federation (BAF), a professional body recognised by the Belgian authorities. Among other claims, she asks the Tribunal to order Eurocontrol to pay for all the acupuncture sessions prescribed by her doctor. 2. The complainant takes issue with the Organisation ...
    • ... 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 7 November 2017 in which the Principal Director of Resources of Eurocontrol rejected her claim for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to five acupuncture sessions delivered by Ms Q., who holds a degree in traditional Chinese medicine and is a member of the Belgian Acupunctors Federation (BAF), a professional body recognised by the Belgian authorities. Among other claims, she asks the Tribunal to order Eurocontrol to pay for all the acupuncture sessions prescribed by her doctor. 2. The complainant takes issue with the Organisation for having taken the impugned decision on the basis of Belgian national law and the practice of the European Commission, whereas Eurocontrol's internal rules providing for a free choice of doctor and treatment facilities applied to her. She points out that health insurance for Eurocontrol staff is independent of national insurance schemes and that ...
    • ... in traditional Chinese medicine and is a member of the Belgian Acupunctors Federation (BAF), a professional body recognised by the Belgian authorities. Among other claims, she asks the Tribunal to order Eurocontrol to pay for all the acupuncture sessions prescribed by her doctor. 2. The complainant takes issue with the Organisation for having taken the impugned decision on the basis of Belgian national law and the practice of the European Commission, whereas Eurocontrol's internal rules providing for a free choice of doctor and treatment facilities applied to her. She points out that health insurance for Eurocontrol staff is independent of national insurance schemes and that Rule of Application No. 10 concerning sickness insurance cover expressly allows acupuncture sessions to be reimbursed, regardless of whether or not such sessions are reimbursed under Belgian national law. In her view, applying national law leads to unequal treatment ...
    • ... Among other claims, she asks the Tribunal to order Eurocontrol to pay for all the acupuncture sessions prescribed by her doctor. 2. The complainant takes issue with the Organisation for having taken the impugned decision on the basis of Belgian national law and the practice of the European Commission, whereas Eurocontrol's internal rules providing for a free choice of doctor and treatment facilities applied to her. She points out that health insurance for Eurocontrol staff is independent of national insurance schemes and that Rule of Application No. 10 concerning sickness insurance cover expressly allows acupuncture sessions to be reimbursed, regardless of whether or not such sessions are reimbursed under Belgian national law. In her view, applying national law leads to unequal treatment of members of staff depending on where they are employed. She further argues that as Eurocontrol is not part of the European Commission, the Commission's ...
    • ... her. She points out that health insurance for Eurocontrol staff is independent of national insurance schemes and that Rule of Application No. 10 concerning sickness insurance cover expressly allows acupuncture sessions to be reimbursed, regardless of whether or not such sessions are reimbursed under Belgian national law. In her view, applying national law leads to unequal treatment of members of staff depending on where they are employed. She further argues that as Eurocontrol is not part of the European Commission, the Commission's practice cannot be applied to Eurocontrol. She submits that she is entitled to reimbursement of the acupuncture sessions at issue under the Rule of Application No. 10 since her situation satisfies the three conditions for such reimbursement, namely, the existence of a medical prescription, a limit of 30 sessions per year and their delivery by a practitioner legally authorised to perform this kind of treatment. 3. Rule ...
    • ... schemes and that Rule of Application No. 10 concerning sickness insurance cover expressly allows acupuncture sessions to be reimbursed, regardless of whether or not such sessions are reimbursed under Belgian national law. In her view, applying national law leads to unequal treatment of members of staff depending on where they are employed. She further argues that as Eurocontrol is not part of the European Commission, the Commission's practice cannot be applied to Eurocontrol. She submits that she is entitled to reimbursement of the acupuncture sessions at issue under the Rule of Application No. 10 since her situation satisfies the three conditions for such reimbursement, namely, the existence of a medical prescription, a limit of 30 sessions per year and their delivery by a practitioner legally authorised to perform this kind of treatment. 3. Rule of Application No. 10 states that acupuncture must be carried out by a practitioner legally ...
    • ... question that must be decided in order to resolve this dispute is therefore whether Ms Q., as a holder of a degree in traditional Chinese medicine, was legally authorised to practise acupuncture at the date of the claim for reimbursement. This legally delicate question should have been referred by the Organisation to the Belgian authorities, who Judgment No. 4401 5 alone were in a position to provide the correct answer. As it did not do so, Eurocontrol could not lawfully refuse to effect the reimbursement at issue, since the file shows that acupuncture is widely practised in Belgium and it is clear from the evidence that the complainant had every reason to believe that the treatment carried out by Ms Q., who had been recommended by her doctor, was performed legally. Accordingly, the impugned decision must be set aside, without there being any need to consider the complainant's other pleas. 8. It follows from ...
    • ... Committee may seek expert medical advice before giving its opinion. The cost of the expert opinion shall be borne by the Agency's Sickness Insurance Scheme. The Management Committee must give its opinion within two months Judgment No. 4401 6 of the request being received. The opinion shall be transmitted simultaneously to the Director General and to the person concerned." Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Director General is to notify the person concerned of her or his reasoned decision within four months from the date on which the internal complaint was lodged. In this case, on 19 January 2017 the complainant lodged an internal complaint with the Director General against the decision of 15 December 2016 informing her of the refusal to cover the costs of the acupuncture sessions because the treatment had not been carried out by a doctor. The impugned decision ...
    • ... in her submissions, the complainant does not establish that any particular injury arose from that breach. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to award her compensation under this head (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 12). 11. As she succeeds for the most part, the complainant is entitled to costs, which the Tribunal sets at 5,000 euros. DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The decision of 7 November 2017 is set aside. 2. Eurocontrol shall reimburse the complainant for the expenses incurred by her in respect of the five sessions of acupuncture referred to in her initial claim for reimbursement, together with interest as specified in consideration 8 above. 3. Eurocontrol shall also pay the complainant costs in the amount of 5,000 euros. 4. All other claims are dismissed. Judgment No. 4401 7 In witness of this judgment, adopted on 17 June 2021, Mr Patrick Frydman, ...
    • ... she succeeds for the most part, the complainant is entitled to costs, which the Tribunal sets at 5,000 euros. DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The decision of 7 November 2017 is set aside. 2. Eurocontrol shall reimburse the complainant for the expenses incurred by her in respect of the five sessions of acupuncture referred to in her initial claim for reimbursement, together with interest as specified in consideration 8 above. 3. Eurocontrol shall also pay the complainant costs in the amount of 5,000 euros. 4. All other claims are dismissed. Judgment No. 4401 7 In witness of this judgment, adopted on 17 June 2021, Mr Patrick Frydman, President of the Tribunal, Mr Giuseppe Barbagallo, Judge, and Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, sign below, as do I, Dražen Petrovic, Registrar. Delivered on 7 July 2021 by video recording posted on the Tribunal's Internet page. (Signed) P ATRICK ...
  • Judgment 4372
    131st Session, 2021
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to classify him in the type of post “Assistant”.
    • ... Eurocontrol 131st Session Judgment No. 4372 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr A.-G. G.-S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 9 September 2017 and corrected on 21 September 2017, Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 30 April, corrected on 14 May, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 July 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 9 September 2017 and corrected on 21 September 2017, Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 30 April, corrected on 14 May, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 July 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: ...
    • ... Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 30 April, corrected on 14 May, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 July 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to classify him in the type ...
    • ... administratif Administrative Tribunal G.-S. v. Eurocontrol 131st Session Judgment No. 4372 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr A.-G. G.-S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 9 September 2017 and corrected on 21 September 2017, Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 30 April, corrected on 14 May, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 July 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to classify him in the type of post "Assistant". With effect from 1 March 2016, the complainant was appointed "Senior Technical ...
    • ... which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to classify him in the type of post "Assistant". With effect from 1 March 2016, the complainant was appointed "Senior Technical Assistant" at gr ade AST9, in the career bracket AST8-AST10, within the Network Operations Management Directorate. On 1 July 2016 a reform of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency entered into force. It involved a new classification of officials. Paragraph 2 of Article 19 of Part 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations relevantly provides as follows: "With effect from 1 July 2016, the Director General shall classify officials in service on 30 June 2016 in function group AST in types of posts as follows: Judgment No. 4372 2 [...] b) Officials who were on 30 June 2016 in a post classified in the career bracket AST8/9/10 ...
    • ... which heard the parties, issued its opinion on 20 March 2017. It unanimously concluded that the complainant had been correctly classified in the type of post "Assistant". On 23 May 2017 the Director-General informed the complainant that, in accordance with the Committee's conclusion, he had decided to dismiss his internal complaint. That is the impugned decision. The complainant seeks the quashing of that decision and an award of 7,500 euros in costs. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. This complaint arises from the implementation of the administrative reform of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency that came into force on 1 July 2016. The complainant was one of three successful candidates for the three vacant posts advertised in competition NM-2015-AST/101 in November 2015. Effective 1 March 2016, the complainant was appointed to ...
    • ... that, in accordance with the Committee's conclusion, he had decided to dismiss his internal complaint. That is the impugned decision. The complainant seeks the quashing of that decision and an award of 7,500 euros in costs. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. This complaint arises from the implementation of the administrative reform of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency that came into force on 1 July 2016. The complainant was one of three successful candidates for the three vacant posts advertised in competition NM-2015-AST/101 in November 2015. Effective 1 March 2016, the complainant was appointed to the generic post of "Senior Technical Assistant", grade AST9 step 1, within the career bracket AST8-AST10. The job title of the vacant posts was "Real-Time Simulation Assistant". Judgment No. 4372 3 2. Following ...
  • Judgment 4335
    131st Session, 2021
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of the allowance she received during her parental leave.
    • ... Eurocontrol 131st Session Judgment No. 4335 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Ms C. E. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 27 February 2019 and corrected on 20 June, and Eurocontrol's reply of 4 October 2019, no rejoinder having been submitted by the complainant; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions; Considering ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 27 February 2019 and corrected on 20 June, and Eurocontrol's reply of 4 October 2019, no rejoinder having been submitted by the complainant; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the amount of the allowance she received during her parental leave. On 30 September 2017 the complainant, ...
    • ... Eurocontrol's reply of 4 October 2019, no rejoinder having been submitted by the complainant; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the amount of the allowance she received during her parental leave. On 30 September 2017 the complainant, who is an air traffic controller at the Maastricht Upper Area ...
    • ... that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the amount of the allowance she received during her parental leave. On 30 September 2017 the complainant, who is an air traffic controller at the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, submitted three requests for parental leave (for the months of June, July and September 2018) pursuant to Article 42a of the General Conditions of Employment (GCE) governing servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre. She requested to be considered as a single parent. At that time, Article 42a relevantly provided that during parental leave a servant was entitled to an allowance. For a servant on full-time parental leave, the standard rate of the allowance was 1,035.76 euros per month, but the rate for single parents was 1,381.02 euros per month. The Implementing Provisions for Article 42a were set out in Office Notice No. 29/08. Judgment No. 4335 2 ...
    • ... the majority of the Joint Committee for Disputes, her complaint was dismissed. That is the impugned decision. The complainant requests before the Tribunal to be paid the difference between the sum she would have received had she been paid at the single parent rate and the allowance she actually received at the standard rate. She also asks to be paid her social contributions during her leave and a "decent sum" for costs and for the emotional stress she has suffered. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint as entirely unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The central question which this complaint raises for determination is whether the impugned decision, dated 17 October 2018, in which the Head of Human Resources and Agency Services, acting by delegation of power from the Director General, accepted the opinion of the majority of the Joint Committee for Disputes to dismiss the complainant's internal complaint against the decision ...
    • ... unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The central question which this complaint raises for determination is whether the impugned decision, dated 17 October 2018, in which the Head of Human Resources and Agency Services, acting by delegation of power from the Director General, accepted the opinion of the majority of the Joint Committee for Disputes to dismiss the complainant's internal complaint against the decision of 8 March 2018, should be set aside and Eurocontrol be ordered to pay her the related amounts and costs which she claims. Judgment No. 4335 3 2. On 30 September 2017, the complainant submitted requests for parental leave as a single parent for the months of June, July and September 2018. The communication of 8 March 2018 informed her that the Director General had decided that, having regard to Office Notice No. 26/17, which amended the Implementing Provisions for Article 42a of the GCE regarding ...
    • ... the time when she submitted her requests for the subject parental leave Office Notice No. 29/08 was in force, her requests should have been examined according to this Notice as under it she fell into the definition of "single parent" entitling her to the allowance for parental leave as such. This, she stated, was because she was not married; Judgment No. 4335 4 she was not in a non-marital partnership; and she was not in a partnership recognized by Eurocontrol or in one contemplated in Office Notice No. 26/17 as reflected in Article 4 of the Implementing Provisions for Article 42a of the GCE attached to Office Notice No. 26/17. 5. Eurocontrol states that it does not dispute that the complainant would have been entitled to the parental leave allowance as a single parent under Office Notice No. 29/08. It however insists that her requests were correctly determined under Office Notice No. 26/17 and that the complainant was ...
    • ... the definition of "single parent" entitling her to the allowance for parental leave as such. This, she stated, was because she was not married; Judgment No. 4335 4 she was not in a non-marital partnership; and she was not in a partnership recognized by Eurocontrol or in one contemplated in Office Notice No. 26/17 as reflected in Article 4 of the Implementing Provisions for Article 42a of the GCE attached to Office Notice No. 26/17. 5. Eurocontrol states that it does not dispute that the complainant would have been entitled to the parental leave allowance as a single parent under Office Notice No. 29/08. It however insists that her requests were correctly determined under Office Notice No. 26/17 and that the complainant was not deprived of her right to parental leave even though she does not qualify as a single parent thereunder. Article 4 of the Implementing Provisions for Article 42a of the GCE attached to Office ...
  • Judgment 4283
    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.
    • ... Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4283 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr A. V. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the applications to intervene filed by Mr G. A., Mr R. B., ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the applications to intervene filed by Mr G. A., Mr R. B., Mr R. D., Mr L. G., Mr C. L. R., Mr A. O. and Mr N. P. on 10 July 2017, and Eurocontrol's comments thereon of 18 August 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 13 of ...
    • ... Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. V. d. S. (No. 5) v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4283 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr A. V. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the applications to intervene filed by Mr G. A., Mr R. B., Mr R. D., Mr L. G., Mr C. L. R., Mr A. O. and Mr N. P. on 10 July 2017, and Eurocontrol's comments thereon of 18 August 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 13 of its Rules; Having examined the written submissions and decided ...
    • ... translation, the French text alone being authoritative. V. d. S. (No. 5) v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4283 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr A. V. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the applications to intervene filed by Mr G. A., Mr R. B., Mr R. D., Mr L. G., Mr C. L. R., Mr A. O. and Mr N. P. on 10 July 2017, and Eurocontrol's comments thereon of 18 August 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 13 of its Rules; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering ...
    • ... Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr A. V. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the applications to intervene filed by Mr G. A., Mr R. B., Mr R. D., Mr L. G., Mr C. L. R., Mr A. O. and Mr N. P. on 10 July 2017, and Eurocontrol's comments thereon of 18 August 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 13 of its Rules; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate. On 3 October 2014 Eurocontrol issued vacancy ...
    • ... and Eurocontrol's comments thereon of 18 August 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 13 of its Rules; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate. On 3 October 2014 Eurocontrol issued vacancy notice NM-2014 FCO/062 to fill nine posts of Deputy Technical Supervisor in the Network Technical Systems Division. The complainant submitted an application. On 15 December 2014 the Principal Director of Resources approved the list of 10 candidates who had been found suitable by the selection board, the first nine of whom were to be offered the advertised posts. The complainant was ninth on the list. The Principal Director of Resources Judgment ...
    • ... of its members considered that the complainant should be awarded moral damages. By memorandum of 13 December 2016, the Director General notified the complainant that he had decided to ż Registry's translation. Judgment No. 4283 3 dismiss his complaint on the ground that it was unfounded. That is the impugned decision. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision and all the previous decisions. He requests that Eurocontrol be ordered to appoint him as Deputy Technical Supervisor with retroactive effect from 13 March 2015 and to pay him the resulting salary arrears. He seeks compensation of 25,000 euros in moral damages and 10,000 euros in costs, including 5,000 euros for costs incurred in the internal proceedings. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint as irreceivable, on the ground that it is time-barred, and unfounded. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol requests the ...
    • ... That is the impugned decision. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision and all the previous decisions. He requests that Eurocontrol be ordered to appoint him as Deputy Technical Supervisor with retroactive effect from 13 March 2015 and to pay him the resulting salary arrears. He seeks compensation of 25,000 euros in moral damages and 10,000 euros in costs, including 5,000 euros for costs incurred in the internal proceedings. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint as irreceivable, on the ground that it is time-barred, and unfounded. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol requests the Tribunal to disregard the matters of law and fact set out in the rejoinder insofar as they are based on the situation of the interveners. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 13 December 2016 by which the Director General of Eurocontrol dismissed his internal complaint seeking, in ...
    • ... that Eurocontrol be ordered to appoint him as Deputy Technical Supervisor with retroactive effect from 13 March 2015 and to pay him the resulting salary arrears. He seeks compensation of 25,000 euros in moral damages and 10,000 euros in costs, including 5,000 euros for costs incurred in the internal proceedings. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint as irreceivable, on the ground that it is time-barred, and unfounded. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol requests the Tribunal to disregard the matters of law and fact set out in the rejoinder insofar as they are based on the situation of the interveners. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 13 December 2016 by which the Director General of Eurocontrol dismissed his internal complaint seeking, in essence, to challenge the cancellation of the competition opened on 3 October 2014 with a view to filling nine newly created posts of Deputy Technical ...
    • ... incurred in the internal proceedings. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint as irreceivable, on the ground that it is time-barred, and unfounded. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol requests the Tribunal to disregard the matters of law and fact set out in the rejoinder insofar as they are based on the situation of the interveners. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 13 December 2016 by which the Director General of Eurocontrol dismissed his internal complaint seeking, in essence, to challenge the cancellation of the competition opened on 3 October 2014 with a view to filling nine newly created posts of Deputy Technical Supervisor in the Network Technical Systems Division. The complainant submits that the cancellation of that competition, in which he was ranked by the selection board as ninth on the list of 10 candidates found suitable for the posts in question, unduly deprived him of an ...
    • ... - that the complainant should have been heard by the Administration before the competition was cancelled. The general principle that an official has the right to be heard before an individual decision that adversely affects her or him is taken plainly cannot be applied to an impersonal decision which is collective in scope, such as the cancellation of a competition. 7. The complainant next disputes the impugned decision on substantive grounds, submitting that Eurocontrol breached its own rules by cancelling the disputed competition before the candidates proposed by the selection board could be appointed and deciding to open a new competition with a revised vacancy notice. He contends that, since the initial selection procedure was validly conducted in accordance with the applicable rules, in particular Article 30 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency and Article 15 of Rule of Application No. 2, the Organisation ...
    • ... impugned decision on substantive grounds, submitting that Eurocontrol breached its own rules by cancelling the disputed competition before the candidates proposed by the selection board could be appointed and deciding to open a new competition with a revised vacancy notice. He contends that, since the initial selection procedure was validly conducted in accordance with the applicable rules, in particular Article 30 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency and Article 15 of Rule of Application No. 2, the Organisation could not refrain from completing that procedure without infringing those provisions. However, this argument disregards the fact that, as stated in consideration 2 above, the executive head of an international organisation is always entitled to decide to cancel a competition procedure in the interests of the service. Although the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti requires that the selection ...
    • ... same rules are deemed to allow such a cancellation, even when the competition concerned has been properly conducted. In this case, in deciding to cancel the initial competition, on the ground that it would not have allowed the posts to be filled appropriately, and to organise a new competition with a revised vacancy notice, the Director General did not, therefore, breach the abovementioned provisions. 8. The complainant challenges the assessment made by Eurocontrol in deciding to cancel the disputed competition and open another for the purpose of selecting candidates whose profile better suited, in its view, the role of deputy technical supervisor. The Tribunal points out, however, that, under its case law referred to in consideration 3 above, it can only interfere with the decision to cancel the competition on the ground of such an error of judgement if that error is manifest. Plainly, the same applies to the decision to open a new ...
    • ... the selection board in the second competition, that plea is in any event irrelevant in this case since the decision of 13 December Judgment No. 4283 10 2016 does not concern the validity of the outcome of that competition, which, moreover, the complainant has not challenged. 11. It follows from the foregoing that the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety, without there being any need to rule on the objections to receivability raised by Eurocontrol. 12. The applications to intervene must, as a consequence of the outcome of the complaint, also be dismissed, without it being necessary to rule on Eurocontrol's objection to the receivability of some of them. DECISION For the above reasons, The complaint and the applications to intervene are dismissed. In witness of this judgment, adopted on 30 June 2020, Mr Patrick Frydman, President of the Tribunal, Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, and Mr Yves Kreins, Judge, ...
    • ... does not concern the validity of the outcome of that competition, which, moreover, the complainant has not challenged. 11. It follows from the foregoing that the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety, without there being any need to rule on the objections to receivability raised by Eurocontrol. 12. The applications to intervene must, as a consequence of the outcome of the complaint, also be dismissed, without it being necessary to rule on Eurocontrol's objection to the receivability of some of them. DECISION For the above reasons, The complaint and the applications to intervene are dismissed. In witness of this judgment, adopted on 30 June 2020, Mr Patrick Frydman, President of the Tribunal, Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, and Mr Yves Kreins, Judge, sign below, as do I, Dražen Petrovic, Registrar. Delivered on 24 July 2020 by video recording posted on the Tribunal's Internet page. (Signed) P ATRICK F RYDMAN F ATOUMATA ...
  • Judgment 4282
    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
    • ... Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4282 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr D. L. A. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 10 October 2018, Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 2 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 14 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 10 October 2018, Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 2 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 14 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up ...
    • ... Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 2 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 14 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant ...
    • ... Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal L. A. v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4282 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr D. L. A. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 10 October 2018, Eurocontrol's reply of 17 January 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 2 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 14 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary ...
    • ... Director General with a recommendation. On 31 July, following a few meetings held with his management, the complainant withdrew his objection to the extension of the probationary period. On 9 August 2017 the complainant was informed that the proposal for extension of his probationary period was rejected by the Directorate of Human Resources as it was not compliant with Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff at Eurocontrol. As a result, the complainant's line manager drafted a final report with a recommendation to the Director General to terminate the complainant's appointment at the end of his probationary period on 30 September 2017. By an internal memorandum of 30 August 2017, the Director General informed the complainant that he had decided to dismiss him at the end of his probationary period as his ...
    • ... the dismissal decision taken on 30 August 2017 and confirmed on 3 July 2018. He asks that these decisions be considered as an early termination of employment in accordance with Article 37(1)c) of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff, with the obligations and rights that this entails. The complainant further asks for cancellation and destruction of the appraisals and reports related to his case. He seeks moral damages of 40,000 euros as well as costs. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant, who was employed as a Service Delivery Assistant by Eurocontrol on a three-year contract from 1 January 2017, challenges the Director General's decision of 3 July 2018, maintaining the initial decision of 30 August 2017 to dismiss him with effect from 30 September 2017 "as [his] work and abilities ha[d] proven inadequate in the Agency". ...
    • ... Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff, with the obligations and rights that this entails. The complainant further asks for cancellation and destruction of the appraisals and reports related to his case. He seeks moral damages of 40,000 euros as well as costs. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant, who was employed as a Service Delivery Assistant by Eurocontrol on a three-year contract from 1 January 2017, challenges the Director General's decision of 3 July 2018, maintaining the initial decision of 30 August 2017 to dismiss him with effect from 30 September 2017 "as [his] work and abilities ha[d] proven inadequate in the Agency". This was at the end of his nine-month probationary period provided for in Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff. The complainant seeks an order setting aside ...
    • ... dismiss him was wrong and should be set aside because during his probationary period, his line manager did not comply with the relevant rules or procedures or with his obligations to properly manage his probation; did no follow-up assessment of his skills and competencies and even actively and passively hindered his successful integration into Eurocontrol. He therefore maintains that Eurocontrol violated its regulations and procedures and did not observe the terms of his appointment, thereby invalidating the final report for his probationary period. In response, Eurocontrol submits that the complainant's appointment was terminated Judgment No. 4282 5 in line with the applicable provisions and the requirements identified by the Tribunal. 6. In addition to the ...
    • ... during his probationary period, his line manager did not comply with the relevant rules or procedures or with his obligations to properly manage his probation; did no follow-up assessment of his skills and competencies and even actively and passively hindered his successful integration into Eurocontrol. He therefore maintains that Eurocontrol violated its regulations and procedures and did not observe the terms of his appointment, thereby invalidating the final report for his probationary period. In response, Eurocontrol submits that the complainant's appointment was terminated Judgment No. 4282 5 in line with the applicable provisions and the requirements identified by the Tribunal. 6. In addition to the guiding principles established by ...
    • ... his probation; did no follow-up assessment of his skills and competencies and even actively and passively hindered his successful integration into Eurocontrol. He therefore maintains that Eurocontrol violated its regulations and procedures and did not observe the terms of his appointment, thereby invalidating the final report for his probationary period. In response, Eurocontrol submits that the complainant's appointment was terminated Judgment No. 4282 5 in line with the applicable provisions and the requirements identified by the Tribunal. 6. In addition to the guiding principles established by the Tribunal, recalled in considerations 2 and 3 of this judgment, the applicable procedures for probationary evaluations are set out, in part, in Article 7 of the ...
    • ... Judgment No. 4282 5 in line with the applicable provisions and the requirements identified by the Tribunal. 6. In addition to the guiding principles established by the Tribunal, recalled in considerations 2 and 3 of this judgment, the applicable procedures for probationary evaluations are set out, in part, in Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff and in Eurocontrol's Probationary Period Information and Procedure (the Procedure). Article 7, paragraph 3, requires a report to be made, not less than one month before the expiry of the probationary period, on the ability of a probationer to perform in the post, and on the latter's conduct and efficiency in the service. Article 7, paragraph 4, provides that a report may be made at any time during the probationary period if the probationer is proving to be obviously ...
    • ... he met with the Head of his Directorate, on 28 July 2017. This was to discuss the possible extension of his probationary period to provide him with an opportunity to improve on the areas of deficient performance on the basis of a structured improvement plan. It was by then realized that Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff precluded an extension of his probationary period. According to Eurocontrol, the complainant then met with his line manager for "another formal meeting on 9 August 2017, which led to the drafting of the final probationary period report and the [termination] recommendation". The line manager had noted in his comments the areas of deficiency in the complainant's work and had concluded that since his probationary period could not have been extended he was ...
    • ... for steps 2 and 3 in that report signify that "no interview" was conducted. Moreover, the complainant's second plea, that there is no evidence that he was given a specific warning that his employment was in jeopardy if his performance did not improve to meet the required standard, is well founded. In the foregoing premises, Eurocontrol did not meet its obligations under the Tribunal's case law, as recalled in consideration 5 of Judgment 3866. 12. The complainant's plea that his French language proficiency objective was not monitored objectively is also well founded. This is because, in the first place, the French language proficiency objective was set to be met at the end of 2017. In the second place, the Tribunal accepts the complainant's assertion that the comments in ...
    • ... does not change his mind to take into account the comments of others". However, these examples, which were ultimately provided to support the complainant's alleged inadequate performance, arose from his objection, at their meeting on 13 July 2017, to the proposal to extend his probationary period. As it transpired, the Administration later realized that an extension of the period would have breached Eurocontrol's rules. 14. In the foregoing premises, the decision to dismiss the complainant at the end of his probationary period was tainted with several irregularities and will be set aside, without there being any need to rule on the other pleas which the complainant raises. 15. The complainant has not requested reinstatement. Instead, he seeks compensation pursuant ...
    • ... premises, the decision to dismiss the complainant at the end of his probationary period was tainted with several irregularities and will be set aside, without there being any need to rule on the other pleas which the complainant raises. 15. The complainant has not requested reinstatement. Instead, he seeks compensation pursuant to Article 37(1)c) of Eurocontrol's Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff. Eurocontrol correctly argues that he is not entitled to compensation under the provisions of Article 37(1) because they are only applicable in cases of termination of limited-term contracts of staff members who have successfully completed their probationary period, which the complainant did not do. However, the decision to dismiss the complainant wrongfully denied him a valuable ...
    • ... at the end of his probationary period was tainted with several irregularities and will be set aside, without there being any need to rule on the other pleas which the complainant raises. 15. The complainant has not requested reinstatement. Instead, he seeks compensation pursuant to Article 37(1)c) of Eurocontrol's Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff. Eurocontrol correctly argues that he is not entitled to compensation under the provisions of Article 37(1) because they are only applicable in cases of termination of limited-term contracts of staff members who have successfully completed their probationary period, which the complainant did not do. However, the decision to dismiss the complainant wrongfully denied him a valuable opportunity to have his appointment confirmed at the end of the ...
    • ... otherwise, generated by his line manager or created at the Directorate of Human Resources to be destroyed. 18. As the complainant succeeds in part, he is entitled to costs in the amount of 750 euros. DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The impugned decision of 3 July 2018 is set aside, as is the Director General's earlier decision of 30 August 2017. 2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount of 25,000 euros, deducting therefrom any sums that he was paid under Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff. 3. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros. 4. Eurocontrol shall destroy the appraisals and reports, whether ...
    • ... 1. The impugned decision of 3 July 2018 is set aside, as is the Director General's earlier decision of 30 August 2017. 2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount of 25,000 euros, deducting therefrom any sums that he was paid under Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff. 3. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros. 4. Eurocontrol shall destroy the appraisals and reports, whether electronic data or otherwise, generated by the complainant's line manager or created at the Directorate of Human Resources. 5. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 750 euros in costs. 6. All other claims are dismissed. Judgment No. 4282 10 ...
    • ... General's earlier decision of 30 August 2017. 2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount of 25,000 euros, deducting therefrom any sums that he was paid under Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff. 3. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros. 4. Eurocontrol shall destroy the appraisals and reports, whether electronic data or otherwise, generated by the complainant's line manager or created at the Directorate of Human Resources. 5. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 750 euros in costs. 6. All other claims are dismissed. Judgment No. 4282 10 In witness of this judgment, adopted on 3 July 2020, Mr Patrick Frydman, President of the Tribunal, Ms Dolores ...
    • ... he was paid under Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Contract Staff. 3. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros. 4. Eurocontrol shall destroy the appraisals and reports, whether electronic data or otherwise, generated by the complainant's line manager or created at the Directorate of Human Resources. 5. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 750 euros in costs. 6. All other claims are dismissed. Judgment No. 4282 10 In witness of this judgment, adopted on 3 July 2020, Mr Patrick Frydman, President of the Tribunal, Ms Dolores M. Hansen, Vice President of the Tribunal, and Sir Hugh A. Rawlins, Judge, sign below, as do I, Dražen Petrovic, Registrar. Delivered on 24 July 2020 by video ...
  • Judgment 4281
    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise.
    • ... Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4281 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr B. H. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 15 March 2017 and corrected on 6 April, Eurocontrol's reply of 27 July, the complainant's rejoinder of 4 December, corrected on 22 December 2017, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 16 April 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 15 March 2017 and corrected on 6 April, Eurocontrol's reply of 27 July, the complainant's rejoinder of 4 December, corrected on 22 December 2017, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 16 April 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The ...
    • ... du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. H. v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4281 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr B. H. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 15 March 2017 and corrected on 6 April, Eurocontrol's reply of 27 July, the complainant's rejoinder of 4 December, corrected on 22 December 2017, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 16 April 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in ...
    • ... translation, the French text alone being authoritative. H. v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4281 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr B. H. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 15 March 2017 and corrected on 6 April, Eurocontrol's reply of 27 July, the complainant's rejoinder of 4 December, corrected on 22 December 2017, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 16 April 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise. The complainant joined Eurocontrol in 1993. On 1 July 2010, following an administrative ...
    • ... corrected on 22 December 2017, and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 16 April 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise. The complainant joined Eurocontrol in 1993. On 1 July 2010, following an administrative reform, the grade to which he had been promoted in 2007 was renamed "AST7". At the material time, he was devoting part of his working time to staff representation activities. In Office Notice No. 25/15 of 22 October 2015, the Director General published the lists of promotions and accelerated step advancements for the 2015 exercise. The complainant was not among the officials promoted. Judgment No. 4281 ...
    • ... to the Director General in which he requested that the decision not to promote him be cancelled and that he be promoted to grade AST8 in the 2015 exercise. On 4 February 2016 his complaint was referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes, which delivered its opinion on 5 October 2016. Two of the Committee's four members considered that the complaint was unfounded because the procedure laid down in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency and Rule of Application No. 4 concerning the procedure for grade promotion provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations had been complied with. In their view, it was clear from Articles 4 and 5 of Rule of Application No. 4 that the Promotion Board examines only the list of eligible candidates centralised by the Directorate in charge of human resources. The other two members considered that the complaint was well founded because, contrary to Article 5 of ...
    • ... 2010. By internal memorandum of 13 December 2016, the Director General informed the complainant that he endorsed the recommendation of two of the Committee members that the complaint should be dismissed as unfounded for the reasons put forward by them. That is the impugned decision. The complainant seeks the annulment of the impugned decision and an award of 50,000 euros in compensation for material and moral injury. He also claims 5,000 euros in costs. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject all the complainant's claims as unfounded. Judgment No. 4281 3 CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 13 December 2016 in which the Director General endorsed the recommendations of two members of the Joint Committee for Disputes and refused to grant him promotion to grade AST8 in the 2015 promotion exercise. 2. According to the Tribunal's settled case law, "while every official should ...
    • ... be exclusively by selection from among officials who have completed a minimum period of two years in their grade, after consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion. Merit shall be understood as e.g. performance and long-standing commitment. [...] When considering comparative merits, the Director General shall take account of the appraisal reports on the officials. [...]" 5. As regards the complainant's activities as a Eurocontrol official, the written submissions show that his performance, as described in the performance appraisal report concerning the period 1 January 2013 to 28 February 2014, preceding the 2015 promotion exercise, was not considered fully satisfactory. The Tribunal observes, moreover, that the complainant's reporting manager, who had, in his performance appraisal report for 2012, proposed that the complainant be promoted, did not repeat that support the following year owing ...
    • ... that the complainant's reporting manager, who had, in his performance appraisal report for 2012, proposed that the complainant be promoted, did not repeat that support the following year owing to the complainant's shortcomings. From 2013, the complainant's staff union activities (representing 40 per cent of his total work) were subject to appraisals by a second reporting manager, the President of the Executive Committee of the Union Syndicale Brussels, Section Eurocontrol, which show that his work was always considered "well done", "constructive and productive" and "always in the interest of the Agency and its staff", but not "excellent" as the complainant states in the complaint. Nothing in the file indicates that that appraisal was not taken into account. Under its case law referred to above, the Tribunal can only interfere with the decision to refuse a promotion on the ground of an error of judgement if that error is manifest. However, ...
    • ... in the interest of the Agency and its staff", but not "excellent" as the complainant states in the complaint. Nothing in the file indicates that that appraisal was not taken into account. Under its case law referred to above, the Tribunal can only interfere with the decision to refuse a promotion on the ground of an error of judgement if that error is manifest. However, given the complainant's performance appraisal reports for his professional activities for Eurocontrol (representing 60 per cent of his total work), the Tribunal cannot find that the decision in question involved an obvious error of judgement. Judgment No. 4281 5 It also follows from the foregoing that the criteria on the basis of which a promotion may be granted under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations were not disregarded. 6. Citing the principle of equal treatment, the complainant submits that he faced discrimination owing to his staff ...
    • ... from the foregoing that the criteria on the basis of which a promotion may be granted under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations were not disregarded. 6. Citing the principle of equal treatment, the complainant submits that he faced discrimination owing to his staff union activity. That discrimination resulted from the Director General's failure at the material time to have implemented the Memorandum of Understanding of 16 July 2003 governing relations between Eurocontrol and three representative staff union organisations, which provides that participation in staff union activities may not be prejudicial to the professional situation and career advancement of the officials concerned. According to the complainant, this meant that the comparative examination of officials' merits in the 2015 promotion exercise did not take into consideration the role he played as a staff union representative, in particular during the discussions and negotiations ...
    • ... into consideration the role he played as a staff union representative, in particular during the discussions and negotiations on the administrative reform of the Staff Regulations and Rules of Application. This resulted in a breach of the principle of equal treatment, since the complainant was not treated in the same way as other members of staff. In support of that contention, the complainant refers to Judgment 2869, in which the Tribunal set aside a decision of Eurocontrol on the ground that, "by not adopting implementing rules to support the Memorandum of Understanding, Eurocontrol violated that Memorandum as well as the principle of equality" (consideration 6). 7. In Judgment 3666, under 8, the Tribunal found that, by assigning an official to a post in which 50 per cent of his activity was devoted to the tasks listed in his job description (with the remaining 50 per cent devoted to his staff union activities), he was reintegrated ...
    • ... and negotiations on the administrative reform of the Staff Regulations and Rules of Application. This resulted in a breach of the principle of equal treatment, since the complainant was not treated in the same way as other members of staff. In support of that contention, the complainant refers to Judgment 2869, in which the Tribunal set aside a decision of Eurocontrol on the ground that, "by not adopting implementing rules to support the Memorandum of Understanding, Eurocontrol violated that Memorandum as well as the principle of equality" (consideration 6). 7. In Judgment 3666, under 8, the Tribunal found that, by assigning an official to a post in which 50 per cent of his activity was devoted to the tasks listed in his job description (with the remaining 50 per cent devoted to his staff union activities), he was reintegrated into Eurocontrol's office hierarchy, which allowed for periodic performance appraisals by a line manager. The ...
    • ... that, "by not adopting implementing rules to support the Memorandum of Understanding, Eurocontrol violated that Memorandum as well as the principle of equality" (consideration 6). 7. In Judgment 3666, under 8, the Tribunal found that, by assigning an official to a post in which 50 per cent of his activity was devoted to the tasks listed in his job description (with the remaining 50 per cent devoted to his staff union activities), he was reintegrated into Eurocontrol's office hierarchy, which allowed for periodic performance appraisals by a line manager. The Tribunal concluded that this restored equality of treatment between that official and other staff members as required under the relevant provision of the Memorandum of Understanding and by Judgment 2869. The complainant in this case is in a similar situation. Although, unlike other officials, he devoted 40 per cent of his working time to staff union activities, that situation ...
    • ... this restored equality of treatment between that official and other staff members as required under the relevant provision of the Memorandum of Understanding and by Judgment 2869. The complainant in this case is in a similar situation. Although, unlike other officials, he devoted 40 per cent of his working time to staff union activities, that situation did not prevent him from being the subject of various performance appraisal reports relating to his duties as a Eurocontrol official, nor did it prevent his reporting manager from Judgment No. 4281 6 proposing his inclusion on the list of officials to be promoted in the 2013 exercise. Furthermore, as noted above, the complainant's staff union activities were appraised from 2013 onwards. The plea that the principle of equal treatment was infringed must therefore be dismissed. 8. In addition, the complainant submits that he was deprived of an opportunity to be ...
  • Judgment 4280
    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a retirement pension.
    • ... Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4280 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr C. B. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 28 May 2018 and corrected on 9 July 2018, Eurocontrol's reply of 20 February 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 25 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 28 ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 28 May 2018 and corrected on 9 July 2018, Eurocontrol's reply of 20 February 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 25 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 28 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts ...
    • ... internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal B. v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4280 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr C. B. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 28 May 2018 and corrected on 9 July 2018, Eurocontrol's reply of 20 February 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 25 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 28 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The ...
    • ... v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4280 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr C. B. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 28 May 2018 and corrected on 9 July 2018, Eurocontrol's reply of 20 February 2019, the complainant's rejoinder of 25 March and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 28 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a retirement pension. The complainant joined Eurocontrol ...
    • ... surrejoinder of 28 June 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a retirement pension. The complainant joined Eurocontrol in April 1993. As from 1 June 1995 he was granted leave on personal grounds initially for a year and later extended several times upon his request. Mid-May 1998 he informed Eurocontrol that he was available to work as from 1 June 1998. The complainant and the Administration had numerous exchanges concerning his reintegration but no post could be found corresponding to his grade and for which he satisfied the requirements ...
    • ... for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a retirement pension. The complainant joined Eurocontrol in April 1993. As from 1 June 1995 he was granted leave on personal grounds initially for a year and later extended several times upon his request. Mid-May 1998 he informed Eurocontrol that he was available to work as from 1 June 1998. The complainant and the Administration had numerous exchanges concerning his reintegration but no post could be found corresponding to his grade and for which he satisfied the requirements before he reached retirement age (65 years of age) on 4 February 2018. Judgment No. 4280 2 On 28 March 2018 he wrote to the Director General requesting the payment of his ...
    • ... reached 65 years of age, he was "required to resign". She added that since he had contributed to the pension scheme for a total period of 26 months he was entitled to the transfer of the actuarial value of his pension rights to a public or private pension scheme under the condition that the scheme fulfilled the criteria outlined in Article 86 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency. She explained that the time spent on leave on personal grounds was not considered as years of service; thus, he had not completed the required ten years of service to be entitled to a retirement pension. She also noted that he did not fall under the exceptions outlined in Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, which allowed staff members to be entitled ...
    • ... ten years of service to be entitled to a retirement pension. She also noted that he did not fall under the exceptions outlined in Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, which allowed staff members to be entitled to a retirement pension irrespective of the length of service. That is the decision he impugned before the Tribunal on 28 May 2018. On 14 February 2019 Eurocontrol wrote to the complainant referring to his letter of 28 March 2018 and his complaint to the Tribunal. It stated that he was entitled to the payment of a monthly retirement pension with effect from 1 March 2018. Eurocontrol would pay him, as from March 2019 and with retroactive effect from 1 March 2018, the monthly retirement pension to which he was entitled, calculated on the basis of his active employment with Eurocontrol from 1 ...
    • ... members to be entitled to a retirement pension irrespective of the length of service. That is the decision he impugned before the Tribunal on 28 May 2018. On 14 February 2019 Eurocontrol wrote to the complainant referring to his letter of 28 March 2018 and his complaint to the Tribunal. It stated that he was entitled to the payment of a monthly retirement pension with effect from 1 March 2018. Eurocontrol would pay him, as from March 2019 and with retroactive effect from 1 March 2018, the monthly retirement pension to which he was entitled, calculated on the basis of his active employment with Eurocontrol from 1 April 1993 to 31 May 1995. It would also pay him interest at a rate of 3.5 per cent per annum (for the period March 2018 to February 2019) to compensate him for the delay in the payment of his retirement pension. In addition, it offered to pay him 5,000 ...
    • ... 2019 Eurocontrol wrote to the complainant referring to his letter of 28 March 2018 and his complaint to the Tribunal. It stated that he was entitled to the payment of a monthly retirement pension with effect from 1 March 2018. Eurocontrol would pay him, as from March 2019 and with retroactive effect from 1 March 2018, the monthly retirement pension to which he was entitled, calculated on the basis of his active employment with Eurocontrol from 1 April 1993 to 31 May 1995. It would also pay him interest at a rate of 3.5 per cent per annum (for the period March 2018 to February 2019) to compensate him for the delay in the payment of his retirement pension. In addition, it offered to pay him 5,000 euros for the delay if he agreed to withdraw his complaint. Eurocontrol added that he should inform it of his acceptance of that offer by 15 March 2019, failing which it would consider that ...
    • ... the monthly retirement pension to which he was entitled, calculated on the basis of his active employment with Eurocontrol from 1 April 1993 to 31 May 1995. It would also pay him interest at a rate of 3.5 per cent per annum (for the period March 2018 to February 2019) to compensate him for the delay in the payment of his retirement pension. In addition, it offered to pay him 5,000 euros for the delay if he agreed to withdraw his complaint. Eurocontrol added that he should inform it of his acceptance of that offer by 15 March 2019, failing which it would consider that he had rejected the offer. The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the payment of his full and complete retirement pension from 1 June 1998 to March 2018. He also seeks an award of one million euros for emotional injury, pain and suffering, together with one million euros for loss of career path, promotion and ...
    • ... which it would consider that he had rejected the offer. The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the payment of his full and complete retirement pension from 1 June 1998 to March 2018. He also seeks an award of one million euros for emotional injury, pain and suffering, together with one million euros for loss of career path, promotion and decent pension. He further seeks costs. Judgment No. 4280 3 Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject the complaint as irreceivable and, subsidiarily, as moot, inasmuch as he claims the payment of a retirement pension which he has now received. "[M]ore subsidiarily", the complaint should be rejected as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant joined Eurocontrol on 1 April 1993, as an expert in the Internal Audit Unit. He was confirmed as a full-time employee ...
    • ... euros for loss of career path, promotion and decent pension. He further seeks costs. Judgment No. 4280 3 Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject the complaint as irreceivable and, subsidiarily, as moot, inasmuch as he claims the payment of a retirement pension which he has now received. "[M]ore subsidiarily", the complaint should be rejected as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant joined Eurocontrol on 1 April 1993, as an expert in the Internal Audit Unit. He was confirmed as a full-time employee following the completion of the six-month probationary period. His multiple requests for leave on personal grounds were granted by decisions dated 19 May 1995, 3 April 1996 and 28 April 1997, for a cumulative period of leave from 1 June 1995 to 31 May 1998. By letter dated 15 May 1998, the complainant informed ...
    • ... the mandatory retirement age of 65 years on 4 February 2018. By letter dated 28 March 2018, he submitted a request to retire effective 1 March 2018. He also requested the payment of his retirement pension to begin with effect from that date. By letter dated 26 April 2018, the Head of Human Resources and Services notified the complainant that, as he had contributed to the Eurocontrol pension scheme for a total period of 26 months, he was entitled to the transfer of the actuarial value of his pension rights to a public or private pension scheme, under the condition that it fulfilled the criteria in Article 86 of the Staff Regulations. She also noted: "As the amount is based only on 26 months and because at the time of your departure on unpaid leave you were entitled to the payment of the severance grant allowance ...
    • ... in cash, we can also exceptionally pay the corresponding amount to a pension fund of your choice (disregarding the mandatory criteria of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations) or [...] pay it directly in cash into your bank account number." The complainant filed the present complaint on 28 May 2018, against the 26 April 2018 decision, requesting: payment of his full and complete retirement pension from 1 June 1998 to March 2018 "as Eurocontrol Judgment No. 4280 4 has demonstrated it never intended to reinstate [him]"; one million euros for emotional injury, pain and suffering; one million euros for loss of career path, promotion and decent pension; and costs. 3. The complaint is irreceivable in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal which provides that "[a] complaint shall not be receivable ...
    • ... the Director General within three months, and that an appeal to the Tribunal be allowed only if the internal complaint filed pursuant to Article 92(2) has been rejected by express or implied decision. The letter of 26 April 2018 cannot be considered as a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. Given that the internal means of redress are open to former Eurocontrol officials, the complainant should have requested a review of the decision by the Director General in accordance with the Staff Regulations. 4. In any event, the Tribunal notes that the issue of the payment of his retirement pension is now moot as the letter of 14 February 2019 from the Head of the Legal Service has superseded the letter of 26 April 2018. In that 14 February 2019 letter, it was communicated to the complainant, ...
    • ... his retirement pension is now moot as the letter of 14 February 2019 from the Head of the Legal Service has superseded the letter of 26 April 2018. In that 14 February 2019 letter, it was communicated to the complainant, inter alia, that after a close review of his file, it had been determined that he was indeed entitled to the payment of a monthly retirement pension with effect from 1 March 2018. He was informed that Eurocontrol would pay him the monthly retirement pension as from March 2019 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2018, calculated on the basis of his active employment from 1 April 1993 until 31 May 1995, plus interest on the late payment at a rate of 3.5 per cent per annum for the period from March 2018 until February 2019. 5. Despite having impugned the 26 April 2018 decision, which exclusively addressed the issue of his request for ...
    • ... that these additional claims are also irreceivable for failure to Judgment No. 4280 5 exhaust the internal means of redress, as he did not challenge, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, any of the decisions not to reinstate him. The complainant's submission that his claims should be considered "receivable by the Tribunal due to the fact that Eurocontrol implicitly made a decision not to reinstate [him]" is unfounded. Regardless of the lack of evidence for this submission, the "implicit" nature of an alleged decision does not relieve the complainant of the requirement to seek review of that decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations prior to bringing a complaint before the Tribunal. 6. As the complainant has not brought any proper final decision ...
  • Judgment 4279
    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment.
    • ... Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4279 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Ms M. J. A. M. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 21 June 2018 and corrected on 2 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 12 October 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 April 2019 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 25 July 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; ...
    • ... Eurocontrol) on 21 June 2018 and corrected on 2 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 12 October 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 April 2019 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 25 July 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment. ...
    • ... Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. A. M. (No. 5) v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4279 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Ms M. J. A. M. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 21 June 2018 and corrected on 2 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 12 October 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 April 2019 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 25 July 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment. At the material time, the complainant was assigned to ...
    • ... translation, the French text alone being authoritative. A. M. (No. 5) v. Eurocontrol 130th Session Judgment No. 4279 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Ms M. J. A. M. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 21 June 2018 and corrected on 2 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 12 October 2018, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 April 2019 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 25 July 2019; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment. At the material time, the complainant was assigned to the Directorate of Resources and had been engaged in staff union activities since 1993. By ...
    • ... was assigned to the Directorate of Resources and had been engaged in staff union activities since 1993. By a letter of 15 December 2015, she made a complaint of psychological harassment against the Principal Director of Resources, Mr V., to the Director General. In particular, she related an incident that had taken place on 23 March 2015 while she was participating in a consultation meeting with the Administration in her capacity as President of the Union Syndicale Eurocontrol France. In March 2016 the Director General appointed two investigators who, at the material time, held positions of responsibility within Eurocontrol. The complainant was interviewed on 3 May 2016 and 16 January 2017. Mr V. was interviewed on 12 and 13 January 2017. Judgment No. 4279 2 In their report of 31 January 2017, the investigators concluded that the harassment complaint was unfounded. They found that the incidents reported did not satisfy ...
    • ... of psychological harassment against the Principal Director of Resources, Mr V., to the Director General. In particular, she related an incident that had taken place on 23 March 2015 while she was participating in a consultation meeting with the Administration in her capacity as President of the Union Syndicale Eurocontrol France. In March 2016 the Director General appointed two investigators who, at the material time, held positions of responsibility within Eurocontrol. The complainant was interviewed on 3 May 2016 and 16 January 2017. Mr V. was interviewed on 12 and 13 January 2017. Judgment No. 4279 2 In their report of 31 January 2017, the investigators concluded that the harassment complaint was unfounded. They found that the incidents reported did not satisfy the cumulative criteria establishing harassment, that is to say abusive behaviour that occurs on a regular basis, over a long period of time, is intentional ...
    • ... complaint was unfounded. They found that the incidents reported did not satisfy the cumulative criteria establishing harassment, that is to say abusive behaviour that occurs on a regular basis, over a long period of time, is intentional and causes prejudice. Specifically with regard to the incident of 23 March 2015, the investigators found that it could not constitute harassment within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency. They considered that no disciplinary sanction should be applied, and recommended that the Director General put in place as soon as possible the rule of application setting out arrangements for implementing the provisions of the Staff Regulations concerning harassment, including detailed guidelines on how investigations should be conducted. By letter of 15 May 2017, the Director General dismissed the harassment complaint as unfounded. However, he considered that ...
    • ... 2018. In her brief, she requests that the Director General appoint one or more investigators with a certain degree of experience to conduct an investigation into the events complained of, during which she and particular witnesses should be interviewed. The complainant claims the symbolic sum of one euro for the moral injury suffered as a result of the harassment and the impact of the length of the internal procedure on her health. She also seeks an award of costs. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss all the complainant's claims as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 19 March 2018 by which the Director General of Eurocontrol dismissed her internal complaint against the decision of 15 May 2017 rejecting her complaint of psychological harassment against the then Principal Director of Resources, Mr V. In essence, that harassment complaint concerned conduct which the complainant - who at the ...
    • ... she and particular witnesses should be interviewed. The complainant claims the symbolic sum of one euro for the moral injury suffered as a result of the harassment and the impact of the length of the internal procedure on her health. She also seeks an award of costs. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to dismiss all the complainant's claims as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 19 March 2018 by which the Director General of Eurocontrol dismissed her internal complaint against the decision of 15 May 2017 rejecting her complaint of psychological harassment against the then Principal Director of Resources, Mr V. In essence, that harassment complaint concerned conduct which the complainant - who at the material time was assigned to the Directorate of Resources and was thus in the reporting line to Mr V. - considered he had subjected her to in the performance of the staff union responsibilities that ...
    • ... 15 May 2017 rejecting her complaint of psychological harassment against the then Principal Director of Resources, Mr V. In essence, that harassment complaint concerned conduct which the complainant - who at the material time was assigned to the Directorate of Resources and was thus in the reporting line to Mr V. - considered he had subjected her to in the performance of the staff union responsibilities that she also performed as President of the Union Syndicale Eurocontrol France (USEF). Judgment No. 4279 4 2. Article 12a of the version of the Staff Regulations in force at the time, which lays down the principle of the prohibition of all forms of harassment within Eurocontrol, defines psychological harassment as "any improper conduct that takes place over a period, is repetitive or systematic and involves physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts that are intentional and that may undermine ...
    • ... to the Directorate of Resources and was thus in the reporting line to Mr V. - considered he had subjected her to in the performance of the staff union responsibilities that she also performed as President of the Union Syndicale Eurocontrol France (USEF). Judgment No. 4279 4 2. Article 12a of the version of the Staff Regulations in force at the time, which lays down the principle of the prohibition of all forms of harassment within Eurocontrol, defines psychological harassment as "any improper conduct that takes place over a period, is repetitive or systematic and involves physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts that are intentional and that may undermine the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of any person". The procedure for dealing with harassment complaints was, at the material time, set out in the Policy on Protecting the Dignity of Staff at Eurocontrol, ...
    • ... defines psychological harassment as "any improper conduct that takes place over a period, is repetitive or systematic and involves physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts that are intentional and that may undermine the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of any person". The procedure for dealing with harassment complaints was, at the material time, set out in the Policy on Protecting the Dignity of Staff at Eurocontrol, issued pursuant to Office Notice 10/98 of 25 June 1998. 3. In support of her complaint, the complainant submits, first, that the two investigators who were appointed by the Director General to investigate her complaint, and whose report concluded that it was unfounded, did not offer the requisite guarantees of impartiality. However, contrary to the view expressed by two of the four members of the Joint Committee for Disputes in the latter's opinion of 21 December ...
    • ... that it was unfounded, did not offer the requisite guarantees of impartiality. However, contrary to the view expressed by two of the four members of the Joint Committee for Disputes in the latter's opinion of 21 December 2017, this argument cannot be accepted. The investigators appointed in this case were the Director of the Maastricht Upper Airspace Control Centre (MUAC) and the Agency's Head of Internal Audit. Since the departments headed by those two senior Eurocontrol's officials did not come under the Directorate of Resources, the complainant is plainly wrong in contending that they were under the authority of Mr V. The Tribunal notes, moreover, that the officials in question considered it important to certify in their report that they did not have a reporting relationship with any of the parties to the dispute. While it is true that they were answerable to the Director General for the performance of their ordinary professional duties, ...
    • ... of their ordinary professional duties, that did not preclude them, in this case, from being entrusted with the investigation of the complaint in question, which was not directed against the Director General. 4. Theoretically, it would doubtless have been preferable, as the Director General himself admitted in his decision of 15 May 2017, to entrust the investigation into the harassment complaint against the Principal Director of Resources to a person outside Eurocontrol. The investigators in fact acknowledged that they had experienced some "discomfort" in having to investigate Mr V.'s conduct. It is furthermore Judgment No. 4279 5 regrettable that the Rule of Application, which, under the Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, was to lay down the implementing provisions for that article, had not yet been adopted when the harassment complaint at issue was made, as the Rule did not come into force until 23 May 2017. ...
    • ... of a properly-conducted procedure complying with the applicable rules of law, if they involve an obvious error of judgement (see, for example, Judgments 3593, under 12, 3682, under 8, 3831, under 28, or 3995, under 7). 8. The complainant's harassment complaint of 15 December 2015 shows that her allegations against Mr V. mainly related to an incident which occurred on 23 March 2015 on the fringe of a consultation meeting between the Director General and Eurocontrol's unions at the Organisation's headquarters. According to the written submissions, during an informal meeting between the complainant and Mr V. which took place, at his initiative, in the corridor next to the meeting room before work recommenced Judgment No. 4279 7 after the lunch break, Mr V. sharply criticised the complainant, as the USEF President, for not having distanced herself from a joint demand made by the various unions that one of her ...
    • ... harassment, as defined by the Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, by Mr V. In addition, the Tribunal considers, in the light of the evidence, that the complainant's allegations that there was an infringement of her right to engage in staff union activities, recognised by Article 24a of the Staff Regulations, and that she was discriminated against on the ground of sex, in breach of Article 1b thereof, are unfounded. 15. The complainant asks that Eurocontrol be ordered to pay her symbolic compensation of one euro in redress for the various injuries that she contends that the Organisation has caused her. Insofar as that claim is based on the existence of the alleged harassment or on the alleged unlawfulness of the impugned decision, the foregoing considerations provide sufficient grounds for it to be dismissed. However, insofar as the complainant also contends, in support of the same claim, that the investigation and internal ...
    • ... General took an excessively long time to open the investigation. Judgment No. 4279 11 The evidence shows that the complainant and Mr V. were notified of its opening on 31 January 2016 and that the investigators - the selection of whom obviously required prior consideration owing to the nature of Mr V.'s duties - were appointed on 6 March 2016, whereas the complainant's harassment complaint, dated 15 December 2015, had been received by Eurocontrol on 17 December. In the Tribunal's view, these time frames show that the Organisation acted with sufficient diligence in view of the circumstances of the case. It is true that the investigation itself took an unusually long time as the investigators did not submit their report until 31 January 2017. However, the evidence shows that the delay was solely due to Mr V.'s absence on medical grounds for most of 2016, which prevented him from being interviewed by the investigators ...
  • Judgment 4216
    129th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the decision to cancel a competition procedure in which he took part.
    • ... Eurocontrol 129th Session Judgment No. 4216 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr P. C. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering ...
    • ... internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. C. (No. 5) v. Eurocontrol 129th Session Judgment No. 4216 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr P. C. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the additional information submitted by Eurocontrol on 4 November 2019 at the Tribunal's request; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided ...
    • ... Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. C. (No. 5) v. Eurocontrol 129th Session Judgment No. 4216 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr P. C. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the additional information submitted by Eurocontrol on 4 November 2019 at the Tribunal's request; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that ...
    • ... (No. 5) v. Eurocontrol 129th Session Judgment No. 4216 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr P. C. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the additional information submitted by Eurocontrol on 4 November 2019 at the Tribunal's request; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the ...
    • ... T RIBUNAL , Considering the fifth complaint filed by Mr P. C. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 8 March 2017 and corrected on 15 March, Eurocontrol's reply of 30 June, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 September 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 17 January 2018; Considering the additional information submitted by Eurocontrol on 4 November 2019 at the Tribunal's request; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the decision to cancel a competition procedure in which he took part. Details of the ...
    • ... of the complainant's employment history can be found, inter alia, in Judgment 4080, dealing with his fourth complaint. At the material time, the complainant was assigned to the Network Management Directorate. On 17 June 2015 he was appointed as "chargé de l'installation" in that Directorate. Judgment No. 4216 2 On 21 May 2015 Eurocontrol published a vacancy notice for the post of Team Leader, Exploitation Facilities, in the same Directorate. The complainant applied and, having been included on the short list, he took a technical test, was interviewed by the selection board and, on 31 August, sat assessment centre tests. On 25 September the selection board noted that the assessment centre tests had issued a "negative recommendation" for both the candidates who were still in ...
    • ... that the Tribunal set aside that decision and order his appointment - with all legal consequences that this entails - to the post in question with retroactive effect from 11 December 2015. He also seeks compensation of 80,000 euros for the moral injury that he considers he has suffered, 5,000 euros in costs, and an additional award of 5,000 euros for the costs relating to the internal appeal proceedings and to disciplinary proceedings that were brought against him. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as groundless. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 13 December 2016 by which the Director General of Eurocontrol dismissed, for the most part, his internal complaint challenging the cancellation of the competition procedure advertised on 21 May 2015 to fill the post of Team Leader, Exploitation Facilities, in the Network Management Directorate. * Registry's ...
    • ... euros for the moral injury that he considers he has suffered, 5,000 euros in costs, and an additional award of 5,000 euros for the costs relating to the internal appeal proceedings and to disciplinary proceedings that were brought against him. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as groundless. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the decision of 13 December 2016 by which the Director General of Eurocontrol dismissed, for the most part, his internal complaint challenging the cancellation of the competition procedure advertised on 21 May 2015 to fill the post of Team Leader, Exploitation Facilities, in the Network Management Directorate. * Registry's translation. Judgment No. 4216 4 The complainant considers that the cancellation of that competition procedure, in which the selection board had ranked him first on the list of suitable candidates, ...
    • ... application for the post in question be re-examined and not - as the Director General evidently wrongly considered - that the complainant not be appointed to it. As the Director General thus misconstrued the purport of the recommendation which he endorsed, his decision was tainted with a further flaw in addition to the one identified above. 9. It follows from the foregoing that the decisions of the Director General of Eurocontrol of 13 December 2016 and 7 December 2015 must be set aside, without there being any need to examine the complainant's other pleas. 10. Contrary to what the complainant submits, the setting aside of those decisions does not in itself imply that the Director General was obliged to appoint him to the aforementioned post following the Judgment No. 4216 8 competition procedure. Under the case law cited in ...
    • ... him retroactively to the post in question from December 2015, with all the legal consequences that this entails, must therefore be dismissed. It is true that the Tribunal could have considered making such an order if, as the complainant submits, the refusal to appoint him was in fact explained by a desire to undermine or exert pressure on him in the context of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him during the same period following a workplace accident at Eurocontrol's premises. The Director General's decision would in that case have involved an abuse of authority warranting exceptional redress. However, the evidence in the file does not enable the Tribunal to conclude that those disciplinary proceedings - referred to in Judgment 4080 on the complainant's fourth complaint - played a part in the process that culminated in the decision impugned in these proceedings. 11. At this stage in its findings, the ...
    • ... competition procedure, this time basing his assessment on a consideration of the exact substance of the findings of the selection board. However, the response to the Tribunal's request for further information shows that the complainant retired on 1 January 2019. Since the issue of his possible appointment to the post in question has become moot, it is not advisable to remit the case to Eurocontrol, but the Tribunal will award the complainant compensation for the various injuries caused to him by the contested decisions, as foreseen by Article VIII of the Statute of the Tribunal in cases of this type. 12. The complainant, who, as stated above, was ranked first on the list of suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board for the competition, was deprived, by the flaws in the decisions in question, of a valuable opportunity to be appointed ...
    • ... are not evident from the written submissions in this case. Finally, for the same reason the complainant is not entitled to reimbursement of the fees of his legal counsel for the aforementioned disciplinary proceedings, which, as previously stated, cannot be regarded as having a direct link with this case. Judgment No. 4216 10 DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The decisions of the Director General of Eurocontrol of 13 December 2016 and 7 December 2015 are set aside. 2. The Organisation shall pay the complainant compensation of 25,000 euros under all heads. 3. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 5,000 euros. 4. All other claims are dismissed. In witness of this judgment, adopted on 11 November 2019, Mr Patrick Frydman, President of the Tribunal, Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, and Mr Yves Kreins, Judge, ...
  • Judgment 4168
    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation of his salary after he was promoted.
    • ... Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4168 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr D. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 5 July 2016 and corrected on 26 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 28 October 2016, the complainant's rejoinder of 6 February 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 12 May 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute ...
    • ... internationale du Travail Organisation internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. T. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4168 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr D. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 5 July 2016 and corrected on 26 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 28 October 2016, the complainant's rejoinder of 6 February 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 12 May 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: ...
    • ... du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. T. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4168 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr D. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 5 July 2016 and corrected on 26 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 28 October 2016, the complainant's rejoinder of 6 February 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 12 May 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation ...
    • ... French text alone being authoritative. T. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4168 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr D. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 5 July 2016 and corrected on 26 July, Eurocontrol's reply of 28 October 2016, the complainant's rejoinder of 6 February 2017 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 12 May 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation of his salary after he was promoted. On 1 July 2008 a wide-ranging administrative reform entered into force at ...
    • ... of 12 May 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation of his salary after he was promoted. On 1 July 2008 a wide-ranging administrative reform entered into force at Eurocontrol, aiming to modernise human resource management by, in particular, placing emphasis on staff performance; details of this reform are explained in Judgment 3189. The reform involved the establishment of a new structure comprising more grades and fewer steps and, therefore, of a new salary scale. Given the aim of the reform, it was intended to have no adverse effect on the situation of staff members. Accordingly, under ...
    • ... performance; details of this reform are explained in Judgment 3189. The reform involved the establishment of a new structure comprising more grades and fewer steps and, therefore, of a new salary scale. Given the aim of the reform, it was intended to have no adverse effect on the situation of staff members. Accordingly, under Article 7 of Part 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency, all Judgment No. 4168 2 officials recruited before 1 July 2008 were to have, in the new classification of functions, a grade offering remuneration and scope for increases equivalent to those offered by the grade which they had held under the previous classification. That result was to be achieved by applying a multiplication factor equal to the ratio between the basic salary paid ...
    • ... cancelled. The complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 5 July 2016. He indicates that he impugns the implicit decision to dismiss his internal complaint of 12 December 2015, as supplemented on 28 January 2016, and asks the Tribunal to set aside that decision, his pay slip of 31 October 2015 and all his subsequent pay slips insofar as they did not apply the multiplication factor of 1 in his case. He also claims 5,000 euros in costs. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as groundless. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the implicit decision of the Director General of Eurocontrol to dismiss his internal complaint of 12 December 2015, as supplemented on 28 January 2016. He asks for his pay slip of 31 October 2015 and subsequent pay slips to be set aside insofar as the multiplication factor applied in ...
    • ... January 2016, and asks the Tribunal to set aside that decision, his pay slip of 31 October 2015 and all his subsequent pay slips insofar as they did not apply the multiplication factor of 1 in his case. He also claims 5,000 euros in costs. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as groundless. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant impugns the implicit decision of the Director General of Eurocontrol to dismiss his internal complaint of 12 December 2015, as supplemented on 28 January 2016. He asks for his pay slip of 31 October 2015 and subsequent pay slips to be set aside insofar as the multiplication factor applied in his case was reduced from 1 to 0.9816196 on his promotion to grade AD10 with retroactive effect from 1 July 2015. 2. The Tribunal considers it regrettable that the complainant's internal complaint ...
    • ... to 1. By a decision of the Director General of 26 October 2015, the complainant was promoted to grade AD10, step 1, with retroactive effect from 1 July 2015. At that juncture, the multiplication factor which was applied in his case was put back to 0.9816196. 4. The complainant contends that by reducing retroactively the multiplication factor that had been assigned to him, Eurocontrol breached Article 7(6) of Part 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the general principle of respect for acquired rights. He considers that as of 30 June 2015 he had acquired the two years of seniority in his step and that, as a result, the multiplication factor of 1 was applicable to him as of 1 July 2015 and should have been applied when he was promoted. Judgment No. 4168 5 In this case, the two-year period began to run on 1 July 2013 ...
    • ... be calculated on step advancement. This was due to occur on 1 July 2015. The multiplication factor was indeed recalculated on that date and reached the level of 1, but, for a reason that is not clear from the file, the step advancement was not granted. From 1 July to 26 October 2015 the complainant received a salary to which the multiplication factor of 1 was applied, which had been assigned to him in accordance with the applicable rules. Eurocontrol could not retroactively reduce it without breaching the principle of the non-retroactivity of administrative acts (see Judgment 3185, under 7(b)). It follows that the plea is well-founded. 5. The implicit decision of the Director General to dismiss the complainant's internal complaint must therefore be set aside without there being any need to examine the other pleas. The same applies to the pay slip of 31 October 2015 and to subsequent pay slips insofar as the ...
    • ... administrative acts (see Judgment 3185, under 7(b)). It follows that the plea is well-founded. 5. The implicit decision of the Director General to dismiss the complainant's internal complaint must therefore be set aside without there being any need to examine the other pleas. The same applies to the pay slip of 31 October 2015 and to subsequent pay slips insofar as the multiplication factor applied was reduced from 1 to 0.9816196. Eurocontrol shall ensure that the complainant's remuneration is calculated as if the multiplication factor of 1 had been applied in his case from 1 July 2015. 6. As the complainant succeeds, he is entitled to costs, which the Tribunal sets at 5,000 euros. DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The Director General's implicit decision to dismiss the complainant's internal complaint of 12 December 2015, as supplemented ...
    • ... 1. The Director General's implicit decision to dismiss the complainant's internal complaint of 12 December 2015, as supplemented on 28 January 2016, is set aside. Judgment No. 4168 6 2. The pay slip of 31 October 2015 and subsequent pay slips are set aside insofar as the multiplication factor was reduced from 1 to 0.9816196, and Eurocontrol shall proceed as indicated in consideration 5, above. 3. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 5,000 euros in costs. In witness of this judgment, adopted on 9 May 2019, Mr Patrick Frydman, Vice-President of the Tribunal, Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, and Mr Yves Kreins, Judge, sign below, as do I, Dražen Petrovic, Registrar. Delivered in public in Geneva on 3 July 2019. (Signed) P ATRICK F RYDMAN F ATOUMATA ...
    • ... complaint of 12 December 2015, as supplemented on 28 January 2016, is set aside. Judgment No. 4168 6 2. The pay slip of 31 October 2015 and subsequent pay slips are set aside insofar as the multiplication factor was reduced from 1 to 0.9816196, and Eurocontrol shall proceed as indicated in consideration 5, above. 3. Eurocontrol ...
  • Judgment 4167
    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
    • ... Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4167 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mrs B. J. A. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 22 November 2016 and corrected on 7 December 2016, Eurocontrol's reply of 10 March 2017, the complainant's rejoinder of 27 April and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 27 July 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the ...
    • ... internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. T. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4167 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mrs B. J. A. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 22 November 2016 and corrected on 7 December 2016, Eurocontrol's reply of 10 March 2017, the complainant's rejoinder of 27 April and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 27 July 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges ...
    • ... Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. T. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4167 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mrs B. J. A. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 22 November 2016 and corrected on 7 December 2016, Eurocontrol's reply of 10 March 2017, the complainant's rejoinder of 27 April and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 27 July 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the Director General's decision to reject her complaint of ...
    • ... French text alone being authoritative. T. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4167 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mrs B. J. A. T. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 22 November 2016 and corrected on 7 December 2016, Eurocontrol's reply of 10 March 2017, the complainant's rejoinder of 27 April and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 27 July 2017; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the Director General's decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has ...
    • ... Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the Director General's decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered. The complainant joined Eurocontrol on 1 February 2002. Assigned to the Internal Audit Service as of 1 July 2013, she was placed under the direct supervision of Ms F. from 1 February 2014 until May 2015, when she was reassigned at her own request. On 20 July 2015 the complainant lodged a complaint of psychological harassment against Ms F. and requested the opening of an administrative inquiry. In particular, she alleged that Ms F. had gradually ...
    • ... of his decision to initiate a preliminary investigation. The complainant was heard on 14 January 2016. On 15 March the Director General informed her that based on the facts established during the preliminary investigation, the situation could not be regarded as psychological harassment in the workplace, in particular because of Ms F.'s lack of intention, which was required by Article 12a of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency, and that no sanction would therefore be imposed on Ms F. The Director General further pointed out that both parties had "suffered from [their] difficult relations" ż and offered to allow the complainant to remain in the post to which she had been reassigned in order to ensure the stability of her professional situation. On 27 April 2016 the complainant lodged an internal complaint with the Director General seeking the setting ...
    • ... Tribunal impugning the implied decision to reject her internal complaint. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside that decision as well as the decision of 15 March 2016. She seeks compensation for the moral and material injury suffered, ż Registry's translation. Judgment No. 4167 3 amounting to 20,000 euros and 1 938,06 euros respectively, as well as costs. In its reply, Eurocontrol informs the Tribunal that, on 12 October 2016, the Joint Committee for Disputes delivered its opinion. Its members considered that they were not in a position to provide an opinion on the merits of the case, because they had not had access to a summary of the facts, or to the documents and conclusions of the investigators, and they therefore requested that the case be reconsidered at a later session, once these items had been forwarded to them. By ...
    • ... or to the documents and conclusions of the investigators, and they therefore requested that the case be reconsidered at a later session, once these items had been forwarded to them. By a memorandum dated 13 December 2016, to which the Committee's opinion was appended, the Director General informed the complainant that he did not share the Committee's opinion and rejected the complaint on the grounds that it was unfounded. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject all the complainant's claims as unfounded. In her rejoinder, the complainant reiterates her claims. She also seeks the setting aside of the decision of 13 December 2016. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol maintains its position. CONSIDERATIONS 1. Although it was initially directed against an implied decision rejecting the complainant's internal complaint, the present complaint must now be seen as impugning the express ...
    • ... 2016, to which the Committee's opinion was appended, the Director General informed the complainant that he did not share the Committee's opinion and rejected the complaint on the grounds that it was unfounded. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject all the complainant's claims as unfounded. In her rejoinder, the complainant reiterates her claims. She also seeks the setting aside of the decision of 13 December 2016. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol maintains its position. CONSIDERATIONS 1. Although it was initially directed against an implied decision rejecting the complainant's internal complaint, the present complaint must now be seen as impugning the express decision of 13 December 2016 by which the Director General informed the complainant that he had decided to dismiss her internal complaint against the decision of 15 March 2016 rejecting her complaint of psychological harassment (see Judgments 4018, ...
    • ... be set aside. At this stage of its findings, the Tribunal should, in principle, remit the case to the Organisation for a fresh examination of the internal complaint of 27 April 2016. However, in the present case, taking into account the elements of the file, and in particular the time that has elapsed since the facts, the Tribunal considers it appropriate not to remit the case to Eurocontrol and to examine itself the lawfulness of the decision of 15 March 2016. 6. In seeking the setting aside of this decision, the complainant submits, inter alia, that the Director General erred in law by rejecting her complaint of harassment on the grounds that Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the intention to harass is a necessary condition for establishing harassment. 7. At the material ...
    • ... according to her, from the harassment she allegedly suffered. However, the documents on file do not establish a causal link between these expenses and the alleged harassment. This claim will therefore be rejected. 11. As she succeeds for the most part, the complainant is entitled to costs, which the Tribunal sets at 5,000 euros. DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The decisions of the Director General of Eurocontrol of 15 March 2016 and 13 December 2016 are set aside. 2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral damages. 3. It shall also pay her 5,000 euros in costs. 4. All other claims are dismissed. Judgment No. 4167 8 In witness of this judgment, adopted on 10 May 2019, Mr Patrick Frydman, Vice-President of the Tribunal, Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, and Mr Yves Kreins, Judge, sign ...
    • ... documents on file do not establish a causal link between these expenses and the alleged harassment. This claim will therefore be rejected. 11. As she succeeds for the most part, the complainant is entitled to costs, which the Tribunal sets at 5,000 euros. DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The decisions of the Director General of Eurocontrol of 15 March 2016 and 13 December 2016 are set aside. 2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral damages. 3. It shall also pay her 5,000 euros in costs. 4. All other claims are dismissed. Judgment No. 4167 8 In witness of this judgment, adopted on 10 May 2019, Mr Patrick Frydman, Vice-President of the Tribunal, Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, and Mr Yves Kreins, Judge, sign below, as do I, Dražen Petrovic, Registrar. Delivered ...
  • Judgment 4166
    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which it considers were unduly paid to him.
    • ... Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4166 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr A. F. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 25 November 2015 and corrected on 9 December 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 14 April 2016, corrected on 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 28 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder ...
    • ... internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. F. d. S. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4166 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr A. F. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 25 November 2015 and corrected on 9 December 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 14 April 2016, corrected on 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 28 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 21 October 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering ...
    • ... Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. F. d. S. v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4166 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr A. F. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 25 November 2015 and corrected on 9 December 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 14 April 2016, corrected on 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 28 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 21 October 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges ...
    • ... v. Eurocontrol 128th Session Judgment No. 4166 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr A. F. d. S. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 25 November 2015 and corrected on 9 December 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 14 April 2016, corrected on 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 28 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 21 October 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol's decision to recover various sums which it considers were unduly paid to him. The complainant joined Eurocontrol ...
    • ... reply of 14 April 2016, corrected on 4 May, the complainant's rejoinder of 28 June and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 21 October 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol's decision to recover various sums which it considers were unduly paid to him. The complainant joined Eurocontrol in 1990. On 2 May 2000 he informed the Administration of his marriage, which took place on 15 April 2000, and requested that his wife's son be recognised as a dependent child, a request which was granted on 14 July 2000. In 2003 the complainant and his wife had a daughter. On 3 March 2009, ...
    • ... surrejoinder of 21 October 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol's decision to recover various sums which it considers were unduly paid to him. The complainant joined Eurocontrol in 1990. On 2 May 2000 he informed the Administration of his marriage, which took place on 15 April 2000, and requested that his wife's son be recognised as a dependent child, a request which was granted on 14 July 2000. In 2003 the complainant and his wife had a daughter. On 3 March 2009, however, they were divorced. On 17 September 2009 the complainant sent the Administration a change of family status form ...
    • ... did not complete the sections of the form entitled Judgment No. 4166 2 "Dependent child(ren)" ż and "No longer dependent child(ren)" * but designated his former spouse's son and their daughter as beneficiaries of the health insurance scheme as dependent children "within the meaning of Article 2 of Rule of application No. 7" concerning remuneration. The two children thus continued to benefit from top-up cover under the Eurocontrol health insurance scheme. In March 2014, at the request of the Administration, the complainant submitted, for his former spouse's son, a certificate of schooling together with a certificate of enrolment in a school for the 2013/2014 school year. On 14 May he was informed that based on the information in his file, he was not entitled to family allowances for the two children beyond the date of the divorce, namely ...
    • ... that he had provided all relevant documents in 2009 and that he inferred from the fact that he was receiving family allowances for his daughter that they had been recorded in his file. According to him, if his file was incomplete, this was because some documents had been lost. On 11 July 2014 the complainant was informed that, following his divorce, his former spouse's son could no longer be considered a dependent child and that Eurocontrol would therefore have to recover undue payments. The complainant replied that his former spouse's son had been recognised by Eurocontrol as a dependent child on 14 July 2000 and that, if, as a result of his divorce, the latter's administrative status had changed, the Organisation should have informed him of this. According to him, Eurocontrol had to take responsibility for its errors. By letter of 15 October 2014 the Directorate of Resources informed the complainant that, ...
    • ... his daughter that they had been recorded in his file. According to him, if his file was incomplete, this was because some documents had been lost. On 11 July 2014 the complainant was informed that, following his divorce, his former spouse's son could no longer be considered a dependent child and that Eurocontrol would therefore have to recover undue payments. The complainant replied that his former spouse's son had been recognised by Eurocontrol as a dependent child on 14 July 2000 and that, if, as a result of his divorce, the latter's administrative status had changed, the Organisation should have informed him of this. According to him, Eurocontrol had to take responsibility for its errors. By letter of 15 October 2014 the Directorate of Resources informed the complainant that, since his former spouse's son could no longer be considered as a dependent child, the recovery of undue payments would be made in respect ...
    • ... his divorce, his former spouse's son could no longer be considered a dependent child and that Eurocontrol would therefore have to recover undue payments. The complainant replied that his former spouse's son had been recognised by Eurocontrol as a dependent child on 14 July 2000 and that, if, as a result of his divorce, the latter's administrative status had changed, the Organisation should have informed him of this. According to him, Eurocontrol had to take responsibility for its errors. By letter of 15 October 2014 the Directorate of Resources informed the complainant that, since his former spouse's son could no longer be considered as a dependent child, the recovery of undue payments would be made in respect of all the benefits paid to him for that child since the date of his divorce, amounting to a total of 36,926.16 euros, in accordance with Article 87 of the Staff Regulations ...
    • ... errors. By letter of 15 October 2014 the Directorate of Resources informed the complainant that, since his former spouse's son could no longer be considered as a dependent child, the recovery of undue payments would be made in respect of all the benefits paid to him for that child since the date of his divorce, amounting to a total of 36,926.16 euros, in accordance with Article 87 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency. ż Registry's translation. Judgment No. 4166 3 On 7 January 2015 the complainant lodged an internal complaint against the decision of 15 October 2014, which he considered unlawful in light of the provisions of Article 87. On 14 July 2015 the Joint Committee for Disputes issued a divided opinion. Two of its members considered that there had been a breach of the "duty ...
    • ... dependent on him. Consequently, the Director General had decided to apply Article 87 of the Staff Regulations on the recovery of undue payments received during the last five years. That is the impugned decision. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the decision of 15 October 2014 to recover the sum of 36,926.16 euros and to award him a sum of 36,900 euros by way of moral damages and costs. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject the complainant's claim for moral damages as irreceivable and to dismiss all his claims as unfounded. Judgment No. 4166 4 CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant asks the Tribunal, firstly, to set aside the decision of 15 October 2014 to recover the sum of 36,926.16 euros and, secondly, to order Eurocontrol to pay an overall amount of 36,900 euros in compensation for the moral injury he considers he has suffered and for ...
    • ... the sum of 36,926.16 euros and to award him a sum of 36,900 euros by way of moral damages and costs. Eurocontrol asks the Tribunal to reject the complainant's claim for moral damages as irreceivable and to dismiss all his claims as unfounded. Judgment No. 4166 4 CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant asks the Tribunal, firstly, to set aside the decision of 15 October 2014 to recover the sum of 36,926.16 euros and, secondly, to order Eurocontrol to pay an overall amount of 36,900 euros in compensation for the moral injury he considers he has suffered and for his costs. 2. Eurocontrol submits that the claim for moral damages, which was not raised in the internal appeal proceedings, is inadmissible. 3. Under article 87 of the Staff Regulations: "Any sum overpaid shall be recovered if the recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently ...
    • ... claim for moral damages as irreceivable and to dismiss all his claims as unfounded. Judgment No. 4166 4 CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant asks the Tribunal, firstly, to set aside the decision of 15 October 2014 to recover the sum of 36,926.16 euros and, secondly, to order Eurocontrol to pay an overall amount of 36,900 euros in compensation for the moral injury he considers he has suffered and for his costs. 2. Eurocontrol submits that the claim for moral damages, which was not raised in the internal appeal proceedings, is inadmissible. 3. Under article 87 of the Staff Regulations: "Any sum overpaid shall be recovered if the recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such that he could not have been unaware of it. The request for recovery must be made no later than five years from the date on which the sum was paid. ...
    • ... the meaning of those provisions. Since, by virtue of the abovementioned case law, the complainant must be deemed to have been aware of the provisions in question, it must be considered that he was aware of the irregularity of the payments which he received unduly. Accordingly the Organisation was entitled, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, to proceed with the recovery of the sums concerned. While the complainant criticises Eurocontrol for not notifying him of a decision that it did not recognise this child as being his dependant, there was no provision requiring the Organisation to notify him of such a decision before taking the decision to recover the undue payments. 5. The complainant's second plea is based on the limitation period applicable to the contested claim. He explains that, in accordance with Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, the request for recovery must be ...
    • ... was no provision requiring the Organisation to notify him of such a decision before taking the decision to recover the undue payments. 5. The complainant's second plea is based on the limitation period applicable to the contested claim. He explains that, in accordance with Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, the request for recovery must be made no later than five years from the date on which the sum was paid, i.e. before March 2014. Eurocontrol argues that, pursuant to Article 87(2), no limitation period applies because the complainant deliberately misled the Organisation. However, the Tribunal finds that, while it is established that the Organisation was indeed misled by the complainant, in particular because, on 17 September 2009, he incorrectly completed a form concerning a change of family status, Eurocontrol has not proved that he did so deliberately. ...
    • ... on which the sum was paid, i.e. before March 2014. Eurocontrol argues that, pursuant to Article 87(2), no limitation period applies because the complainant deliberately misled the Organisation. However, the Tribunal finds that, while it is established that the Organisation was indeed misled by the complainant, in particular because, on 17 September 2009, he incorrectly completed a form concerning a change of family status, Eurocontrol has not proved that he did so deliberately. Judgment No. 4166 6 Eurocontrol also argues that the limitation period did not begin to run until it became aware of the irregularity, in March 2014, after it asked the complainant, on 8 January 2014, to provide it with documents proving that his former spouse's son was a dependent child. However, contrary to its allegations, it is clear from Article 87(2) ...
    • ... because the complainant deliberately misled the Organisation. However, the Tribunal finds that, while it is established that the Organisation was indeed misled by the complainant, in particular because, on 17 September 2009, he incorrectly completed a form concerning a change of family status, Eurocontrol has not proved that he did so deliberately. Judgment No. 4166 6 Eurocontrol also argues that the limitation period did not begin to run until it became aware of the irregularity, in March 2014, after it asked the complainant, on 8 January 2014, to provide it with documents proving that his former spouse's son was a dependent child. However, contrary to its allegations, it is clear from Article 87(2) that the limitation period begins to run from the date on which the payments were made and not from the ...
    • ... considers that there is no reason to grant him compensation in this respect. 8. As he succeeds in part, the complainant will be awarded 300 euros in costs. Judgment No. 4166 7 DECISION For the above reasons, 1. The impugned decision is set aside to the extent that it concerns the recovery of the sums unduly received by the complainant during the period prior to 15 October 2009. 2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant 300 euros in costs. 3. All other claims are dismissed. In witness of this judgment, adopted on 9 May 2019, Mr Patrick Frydman, Vice-President of the Tribunal, Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, and Mr Yves Kreins, Judge, sign below, as do I, Dražen Petrovic, Registrar. Delivered in public in Geneva on 3 July 2019. (Signed) P ATRICK F RYDMAN F ATOUMATA D IAKITÉ Y VES ...
  • Judgment 4122
    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4016.
    • ... Eurocontrol (Application for review) 127th Session Judgment No. 4122 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the application for review of Judgment 4016 filed by Mr I. A. on 2 November 2018; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 7 of its Rules; Having examined the written submissions; CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4016, ...
    • ... II, paragraph 5, and VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 7 of its Rules; Having examined the written submissions; CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4016, delivered in public on 26 June 2018, by which the Tribunal dismissed his fifth complaint filed on 29 March 2016 against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol). In that complaint, the complainant, who was an air traffic controller at the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, challenged the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age. His main argument was that paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the General Conditions of Employment (GCE), which provided at the material time that air traffic controllers recruited after 2 May 1990 would be retired on the last ...
    • ... decision in Judgment 4016 the Tribunal made a material error. In his view, in order to determine whether there had been any unlawful difference of treatment, the Tribunal ought to have compared the treatment of older and younger air traffic controllers, instead of comparing the treatment of air traffic controllers with that of other servants. He points out that air traffic controllers recruited after the entry into force of Eurocontrol's administrative reform in July 2016 benefited from an amendment of the provisions of Article 53 of the GCE and were able to continue working until the age of 57. 5. In Judgment 4016, the Tribunal observed that the amendment of paragraph 2 of Article 53 did not affect the conclusion that this provision was not unlawfully discriminatory. The Tribunal considered Judgment No. 4122 3 ...
    • ... provision was not unlawfully discriminatory. The Tribunal considered Judgment No. 4122 3 that the complainant's contention that the amendment in question created unlawful discrimination based on age was unfounded. Air traffic controllers recruited prior to the entry into force of the administrative reform are, by definition, not in the same situation in fact or in law as their younger counterparts who joined Eurocontrol after Article 53 had been amended. Accordingly the difference in treatment as between these two different categories of servants was not, in itself, considered unlawful. Moreover, in consideration 7 of Judgment 4016 the Tribunal stated that "[the] work situation [of the air traffic controllers] is also different from that of pilots". It may be inferred from this statement that the reference made by the complainant to the judgment of the European ...
    • ... in the case of Reinhard Prigge and others v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG (13 September 2011, C-447/09) was considered by the Tribunal to be irrelevant to its decision. 6. The complainant also contends that the Tribunal did not take into account several material facts, namely: the fact that the age limit of 55 was not based on "generally accepted socio-physiological and psychological criteria" but rather on the age limitation applied in certain Member States of Eurocontrol; developments in international legislation; changes in the technological environment; and the existence of mandatory competence and medical checks within Eurocontrol. He argues that the omission to take into account these facts meant that the Tribunal could not properly evaluate whether the contested provision violated the principle of non-discrimination. 7. By this plea, the complainant simply expresses his disagreement with the Tribunal's ...
    • ... 6. The complainant also contends that the Tribunal did not take into account several material facts, namely: the fact that the age limit of 55 was not based on "generally accepted socio-physiological and psychological criteria" but rather on the age limitation applied in certain Member States of Eurocontrol; developments in international legislation; changes in the technological environment; and the existence of mandatory competence and medical checks within Eurocontrol. He argues that the omission to take into account these facts meant that the Tribunal could not properly evaluate whether the contested provision violated the principle of non-discrimination. 7. By this plea, the complainant simply expresses his disagreement with the Tribunal's appraisal of the evidence and its interpretation of the law. His application for review does not raise any of the admissible grounds for review recalled in consideration ...
  • Judgment 4082
    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade.
    • ... Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4082 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr G. M. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 26 June 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 8 October 2015, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 February 2016 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written ...
    • ... du Travail Organisation internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. M. v. Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4082 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr G. M. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 26 June 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 8 October 2015, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 February 2016 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the salary he receives at ...
    • ... internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. M. v. Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4082 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr G. M. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 26 June 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 8 October 2015, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 February 2016 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade. The complainant, ...
    • ... Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. M. v. Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4082 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr G. M. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 26 June 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 8 October 2015, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 February 2016 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade. The complainant, who joined Eurocontrol in 2000, was appointed to a grade B5 post on 1 August 2004. On ...
    • ... 2015, the complainant's rejoinder of 15 February 2016 and Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 20 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade. The complainant, who joined Eurocontrol in 2000, was appointed to a grade B5 post on 1 August 2004. On 1 July 2008 a wide-ranging administrative reform entered into force at Eurocontrol, the details of which are explained in Judgment 3189. At that juncture, the non-operational staff categories B and C were replaced for a two-year transitional period by the categories B* and C* respectively. The complainant was then placed in grade B*5. On 1 July 2010, at the end of the transitional period, ...
    • ... VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade. The complainant, who joined Eurocontrol in 2000, was appointed to a grade B5 post on 1 August 2004. On 1 July 2008 a wide-ranging administrative reform entered into force at Eurocontrol, the details of which are explained in Judgment 3189. At that juncture, the non-operational staff categories B and C were replaced for a two-year transitional period by the categories B* and C* respectively. The complainant was then placed in grade B*5. On 1 July 2010, at the end of the transitional period, categories B*and C* were merged and placed in the Assistant group (AST). From that date, the complainant held grade AST5, step 3. He ...
    • ... - who then held grade AST5, step 6 - was informed that he had been promoted to grade AST6, step 1, with retroactive effect as of 1 July 2014. On 28 January 2015 he filed an internal complaint challenging his payslip for the month of November 2014. He complained that the salary at his new grade had not been calculated in accordance with Article 7(4) of Part 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency. He requested, amongst other relief, the cancellation of his payslip for November 2014 and all subsequent payslips. On 26 June 2015 the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal. He indicates that he is impugning the implied decision to dismiss his internal complaint, and he asks the Tribunal to quash that decision and to cancel his payslip for November 2014, as well as all his subsequent payslips. He ...
    • ... of his payslip for November 2014 and all subsequent payslips. On 26 June 2015 the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal. He indicates that he is impugning the implied decision to dismiss his internal complaint, and he asks the Tribunal to quash that decision and to cancel his payslip for November 2014, as well as all his subsequent payslips. He also claims 5,000 euros in costs. In its reply, Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as groundless. In his rejoinder, the complainant maintains his claims. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol informs the Tribunal that, on 21 March 2016, the Joint Committee for Disputes, to which the complainant's internal complaint was referred, issued its opinion, in which it held unanimously that the complaint was unfounded and should be dismissed on the grounds that ...
    • ... that he is impugning the implied decision to dismiss his internal complaint, and he asks the Tribunal to quash that decision and to cancel his payslip for November 2014, as well as all his subsequent payslips. He also claims 5,000 euros in costs. In its reply, Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as groundless. In his rejoinder, the complainant maintains his claims. In its surrejoinder, Eurocontrol informs the Tribunal that, on 21 March 2016, the Joint Committee for Disputes, to which the complainant's internal complaint was referred, issued its opinion, in which it held unanimously that the complaint was unfounded and should be dismissed on the grounds that the complainant's salary at his new grade had been calculated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations. Eurocontrol adds that, ...
    • ... Eurocontrol informs the Tribunal that, on 21 March 2016, the Joint Committee for Disputes, to which the complainant's internal complaint was referred, issued its opinion, in which it held unanimously that the complaint was unfounded and should be dismissed on the grounds that the complainant's salary at his new grade had been calculated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations. Eurocontrol adds that, by a memorandum dated 27 April 2016, the complainant was informed that the Director General shared the Committee's view and that his internal complaint was therefore dismissed. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant asks the Tribunal to cancel his payslip for November 2014, as well as all his subsequent payslips. He also asks the Tribunal to quash the implied decision dismissing his internal complaint lodged on 28 January 2015 and to order the defendant Organisation ...
    • ... increment for that grade throughout the span of the actual steps." 5. It is clear from the provisions of Article 7(4), contained, as mentioned above, in Annex XIII, on transitional measures applicable to officials, that the "last step of [the] grade" referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 7(4) must be understood as being the last step of the grade held by the official concerned before the implementation of Eurocontrol's administrative reform in 2008. 6. In the present case, prior to the entry into force of the reform, the complainant held a post at grade B5, step 4, and there were only four steps in that grade. Since the complainant was therefore at the last step of his grade, he is not entitled to benefit from the provisions of the third subparagraph of Article 7(4), which are not applicable to him. 7. It follows from the foregoing that the complaint ...
  • Judgment 4081
    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
    • ... Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4081 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr P. D. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 13 May 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 September, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 November 2015, Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 February 2016, the complainant's further submissions of 23 March and Eurocontrol's final comments thereon of 4 May 2016; Considering ...
    • ... du Travail Organisation internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. D. v. Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4081 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr P. D. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 13 May 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 September, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 November 2015, Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 February 2016, the complainant's further submissions of 23 March and Eurocontrol's final comments thereon of 4 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering ...
    • ... internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. D. v. Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4081 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr P. D. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 13 May 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 September, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 November 2015, Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 February 2016, the complainant's further submissions of 23 March and Eurocontrol's final comments thereon of 4 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be ...
    • ... Administrative Tribunal Registry ' s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. D. v. Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4081 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr P. D. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 13 May 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 September, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 November 2015, Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 February 2016, the complainant's further submissions of 23 March and Eurocontrol's final comments thereon of 4 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General ...
    • ... authoritative. D. v. Eurocontrol 127th Session Judgment No. 4081 T HE A DMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL , Considering the complaint filed by Mr P. D. against the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) on 13 May 2015, Eurocontrol's reply of 4 September, the complainant's rejoinder of 19 November 2015, Eurocontrol's surrejoinder of 26 February 2016, the complainant's further submissions of 23 March and Eurocontrol's final comments thereon of 4 May 2016; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation. At the material time, the ...
    • ... examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation. At the material time, the complainant was Head of the Collection, Accounting and Treasury Unit. Until 31 December 2012, he had been Executive Officer of the Eurocontrol Pension Fund. By a letter of 1 July 2014 he was informed of his nomination, with immediate effect, for a three-year assignment as a professional member and expert in pension funds of the Governing Board of the Pension Fund of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). On 14 July he requested the Director General's permission to carry out this assignment. Judgment No. 4081 2 He explained that the Governing Board ...
    • ... letter dated 1 August 2014, the Director General told the Chairman of the Governing Board of the CERN Pension Fund that he would greatly appreciate another person being nominated instead of the complainant, since he would rather have the complainant concentrate on his duties as Head of the Collection, Accounting and Treasury Unit. He also explained why he considered that participation in the Governing Board might not be beneficial for Eurocontrol. On 4 August the Director General informed the complainant's supervisor that, owing to the Organisation's shortage of resources, he did not consider it appropriate for the complainant to carry out the assignment and asked him to inform the complainant accordingly, which the supervisor did the following day. On 5 August the complainant asked the Director General to reconsider his decision, pointing out that he planned to use ...
    • ... the decision of 4 August 2014 claiming compensation for moral and material injury. On 13 May 2015 he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. He indicates that he is impugning the implied decision to reject his internal complaint, and he seeks the quashing of that decision as well as the decision of 4 August 2014. He also claims compensation for moral and material injury and costs. Judgment No. 4081 3 Eurocontrol submits that the complaint should be dismissed as unfounded. It informs the Tribunal that, on 30 April 2015, the Joint Committee for Disputes, to which the dispute had been referred, issued its opinion. The Joint Committee concluded that the procedure followed had been "unfortunate and inappropriate", particularly because the Director General had contacted the Chairman of the Governing Board of the CERN Pension Fund directly, ...
    • ... beforehand, and because in the first place he had notified the supervisor of the complainant that he would not grant the latter permission to carry out the assignment. In addition, the majority of the Joint Committee members considered that the Director General's refusal was not properly substantiated. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Director General contact the complainant to set the amount of compensation due for the moral injury suffered. Eurocontrol adds that, on 29 July 2015, the Director General informed the complainant that his refusal was justified by the fact that the complainant had important responsibilities that would not allow him to carry out the assignment, particularly since, in the Director General's view, the complainant's absences would probably have been "far more" than six days per year. He added that owing to the late submission of his request, the complainant had ...
    • ... the Director General informed the complainant that his refusal was justified by the fact that the complainant had important responsibilities that would not allow him to carry out the assignment, particularly since, in the Director General's view, the complainant's absences would probably have been "far more" than six days per year. He added that owing to the late submission of his request, the complainant had "deliberately placed [Eurocontrol] in a situation where it had to take a decision" and, in so doing, he had not observed Eurocontrol's "codes of ethical conduct". Lastly, he informed him that the experience he might have gained with the Governing Board would be neither beneficial nor necessary for Eurocontrol, since his term of office with the CERN Pension Fund had ended. Accordingly, the Director General informed the complainant that his internal ...
    • ... that the complainant had important responsibilities that would not allow him to carry out the assignment, particularly since, in the Director General's view, the complainant's absences would probably have been "far more" than six days per year. He added that owing to the late submission of his request, the complainant had "deliberately placed [Eurocontrol] in a situation where it had to take a decision" and, in so doing, he had not observed Eurocontrol's "codes of ethical conduct". Lastly, he informed him that the experience he might have gained with the Governing Board would be neither beneficial nor necessary for Eurocontrol, since his term of office with the CERN Pension Fund had ended. Accordingly, the Director General informed the complainant that his internal complaint was dismissed as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant asks the Tribunal ...
    • ... probably have been "far more" than six days per year. He added that owing to the late submission of his request, the complainant had "deliberately placed [Eurocontrol] in a situation where it had to take a decision" and, in so doing, he had not observed Eurocontrol's "codes of ethical conduct". Lastly, he informed him that the experience he might have gained with the Governing Board would be neither beneficial nor necessary for Eurocontrol, since his term of office with the CERN Pension Fund had ended. Accordingly, the Director General informed the complainant that his internal complaint was dismissed as unfounded. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside, firstly, the implied decision rejecting his internal complaint against the decision of 4 August 2014 and, secondly, the latter decision itself, by which the Director General rejected the complainant's ...
    • ... the decision of 4 August 2014 and, secondly, the latter decision itself, by which the Director General rejected the complainant's request for permission to carry out an external assignment, namely a three-year mandate with Judgment No. 4081 4 the Governing Board of the CERN Pension Fund. He also claims 50,000 euros in moral damages, 100,000 euros in material damages and 4,000 euros in costs. 2. Eurocontrol requests that the Tribunal dismiss the complaint as unfounded. 3. This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant's internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 29 July 2015, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to reject the internal complaint against the aforementioned decision ...
    • ... must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 29 July 2015, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to reject the internal complaint against the aforementioned decision of 4 August 2014 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1). 4. The complainant submits that the Director General's decision of 4 August 2014 is insufficiently substantiated. In Eurocontrol's view, the reasons for this decision, albeit brief, were set forth in the decision of 29 July 2015. 5. The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and, in particular, the Tribunal to exercise its ...
    • ... by such a decision, this plea will be dismissed. 6. The complainant submits that the assignment for which he was nominated was not contrary to the interests of the Organisation and would not interfere with the performance of his duties. He should therefore have been allowed to carry out the assignment in accordance with Article 12b of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency. He adds that the argument concerning the shortage of resources is not relevant to Article 12b, as it would have been possible for him to engage in an activity outside the Organisation by taking annual leave. He points out in this regard that the application form for engaging in an activity outside the Organisation provides for the possibility of carrying out such an activity during annual leave. Eurocontrol considers that the ...
    • ... the Eurocontrol Agency. He adds that the argument concerning the shortage of resources is not relevant to Article 12b, as it would have been possible for him to engage in an activity outside the Organisation by taking annual leave. He points out in this regard that the application form for engaging in an activity outside the Organisation provides for the possibility of carrying out such an activity during annual leave. Eurocontrol considers that the Director General's refusal to grant the complainant permission to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation is justified under Article 12b, given the important position held by the complainant and the fact that his absences would be incompatible with the interests of the Organisation. Judgment No. 4081 6 7. According to Article 12b of the Staff Regulations, ...
    • ... in such an activity. Nonetheless, the Tribunal recalls that although annual leave is usually granted to officials upon submission of a request approved by the administration, such approval is subject to the requirements of the service. Given the frequency of the meetings of the Governing Board of the CERN Pension Fund (six times per year) and, moreover, the fact that the dates of such meetings would not have been set according to Eurocontrol's requirements, the complainant could not say in advance that his absences would be compatible with the efficient running of the service. 11. The complainant contends that Eurocontrol has deprived him of a beneficial experience and acted in contradiction with its staff training policy. However, the Tribunal considers that, whilst this argument is not, in itself, completely devoid of merit, in the present case the Director General did ...
    • ... of the service. Given the frequency of the meetings of the Governing Board of the CERN Pension Fund (six times per year) and, moreover, the fact that the dates of such meetings would not have been set according to Eurocontrol's requirements, the complainant could not say in advance that his absences would be compatible with the efficient running of the service. 11. The complainant contends that Eurocontrol has deprived him of a beneficial experience and acted in contradiction with its staff training policy. However, the Tribunal considers that, whilst this argument is not, in itself, completely devoid of merit, in the present case the Director General did not misuse his discretionary power by holding that the request to carry out the assignment should be refused, in view of the Organisation's shortage of resources, as mentioned above. ...
    • ... opinion. This plea therefore fails. Judgment No. 4081 8 13. The complainant then raises several objections concerning the letter of 1 August 2014, in which the Director General informed the Chairman of the Governing Board of the CERN Pension Fund that he would prefer the complainant to concentrate on his duties as head of unit and that he considered that participation in the Governing Board would not be beneficial for Eurocontrol. 14. Firstly, the complainant criticises the Director General for having directly informed the Chairman of the Governing Board that he was not authorised to carry out the assignment in question and of having thus "closed all possibility of discussion". Eurocontrol explains that since the complainant's request was submitted late, the Director General had been "pressed for time" and, out of respect, wished to ...
    • ... would prefer the complainant to concentrate on his duties as head of unit and that he considered that participation in the Governing Board would not be beneficial for Eurocontrol. 14. Firstly, the complainant criticises the Director General for having directly informed the Chairman of the Governing Board that he was not authorised to carry out the assignment in question and of having thus "closed all possibility of discussion". Eurocontrol explains that since the complainant's request was submitted late, the Director General had been "pressed for time" and, out of respect, wished to notify CERN directly. The Tribunal notes that by submitting his request on 14 July 2014, in other words after the date on which his mandate was due to commence (1 July), the complainant failed to comply with Article 12b of the Staff Regulations, which required that the request be submitted first to the ...
    • ... to him, the Director General stated that he was willing to offer the services of another staff member to replace the complainant. The Tribunal notes that, contrary to the complainant's allegations, in his letter of 1 August 2014 the Director General merely stated that he would greatly appreciate another person being nominated in place of Judgment No. 4081 9 the complainant and that he was not in a position to offer the services of Eurocontrol's "current Pension Fund Executive Officer", which, in any event, could not be construed as a proposal to nominate another staff member of Eurocontrol. The plea must therefore be dismissed. 17. The complainant argues that the reasons set forth in the letter of 1 August 2014 are not consistent with the reason given in the decision of 4 August 2014. The Tribunal considers that there is no inconsistency between the Director General's reference in the e-mail of 4 ...
    • ... that, contrary to the complainant's allegations, in his letter of 1 August 2014 the Director General merely stated that he would greatly appreciate another person being nominated in place of Judgment No. 4081 9 the complainant and that he was not in a position to offer the services of Eurocontrol's "current Pension Fund Executive Officer", which, in any event, could not be construed as a proposal to nominate another staff member of Eurocontrol. The plea must therefore be dismissed. 17. The complainant argues that the reasons set forth in the letter of 1 August 2014 are not consistent with the reason given in the decision of 4 August 2014. The Tribunal considers that there is no inconsistency between the Director General's reference in the e-mail of 4 August 2014 to the Organisation's shortage of resources as grounds for his decision not to allow the complainant to carry out the assignment and the wish expressed ...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >


 
Last updated: 09.08.2022 ^ top