Judgment No. 2158
Decision
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The Agency's counterclaim is dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant pleads a "material error". The gist of his argument is that the Tribunal failed to admit the existence of promises by the Agency concerning the renewal of his appointment.
The Tribunal noted in Judgment 2034, under 15, 16 and 17, that the complainant cited specific promises to that effect. He relied among other things on a statement of 22 July 1998 by the former Director of the Institute of Air Navigation Services in Luxembourg. The Tribunal found that, even if there had been promises made, the complainant had failed to prove that they had been taken by the competent authority, since it is the Director General who has sole responsibility for employment policy of Eurocontrol. The Tribunal further observed that the complainant had failed to prove that he was to be given a permanent appointment or that the competent authority had assured him at some stage that his appointment would be renewed and subsequently converted into a permanent one.
The conclusion is that the Tribunal did examine the evidence and made an appraisal of it which may not be challenged in an application for review. The plea is therefore inadmissible.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2034
Keywords
good faith; duty of care
|
