Judgment No. 3993
Decision
1. The impugned decision, contained in the letter dated 12 June 2015, is set aside, as is the decision to appoint Mr E. to the subject post.
2. The OPCW shall ensure that Mr E. is shielded from any injury that may flow from the setting aside of the impugned decision and his appointment, which he had accepted in good faith.
3. The OPCW shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 4,000 euros.
4. It shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 5,000 euros.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the direct appointment of Mr E. to the position of Legal Adviser.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; appointment without competition
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant proffers various submissions to support his contention that the email of 2 December 2013, which he obviously received, did not satisfy the requirement of notification. [...]
Importantly, however, the complainant submits that the email of 2 December 2013 left it unclear which post Mr E. was to fill, and that he was only properly informed of the decision concerning the appointment of Mr E. when he received the email confirmation from the Human Resources Branch [...]. The Tribunal considers that, while the email of 2 December 2013 notified the complainant of the appointment of Mr E. as Legal Adviser, it did not specify whether the appointment was at the D-1 level, which the complainant held, or at the D-2 level, for which the complainant wished to apply. It was by the email of 10 April 2014, which confirmed implicitly that the appointment was at the D-2 level, that the complainant was properly notified. Accordingly, his request for review [...] was made within the required time limit. It was therefore receivable.
Keywords
internal appeal
|
