Judgment No. 4594
Decision
1. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 3,000 euros.
2. It shall also pay her 3,000 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; competition; selection procedure
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant alleges that the independence of the Joint Committee for Disputes was compromised by the fact that the Secretary of the Committee was a subordinate of the Head of the Human Resources and Staff Administration Service.
The Tribunal notes, however, first, that the appointment by the Director General of a Eurocontrol official as the Secretary of the Committee is expressly provided for in Article 2 of the Annex to Office Notice No. 06/11 on the Functioning of the Joint Committee for Disputes tasked with handling complaints and, secondly, that there is nothing to preclude that official from being a subordinate of that Head of Service. The Secretary of the Committee, who fulfils a purely administrative role, does not form part of the Committee. In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Secretary overstepped his role, nor, a fortiori, that he attempted to influence the members of the Committee in a way dictated by his superior.
Keywords
composition of the internal appeals body
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the various decisions relating to the handling of her internal complaint were taken by the Head of the Human Resources and Staff Administration Service whereas they fell within the competence of the Director General, who had not delegated his authority to the aforementioned Head.
However, the Tribunal finds from the evidence adduced by Eurocontrol in support of its reply that:
– by Decision No. XI/14 (2016) of 1 December 2016, the Director General had delegated power to the Director of Resources to take and sign certain decisions referred to in the provisions of the Staff Regulations, including “decisions and documents relating to the complaint process” (see the eighth indent of Article 1 of that decision);
– under Article 2 of that same decision, the Director of Resources is authorised to transfer all or part of his delegation of signature to officials in the Directorate of Resources;
– that Director had made use of that authority by authorising, by his Decision No. DR/II/01 (2017) of 1 September 2017, the Head of Human Resources and Staff Administration to sign documents falling under her responsibilities and for which the Director of Resources had received delegation of authority to sign according to the aforementioned Decision of the Director General of 1 December 2016.
Since the handling of an internal complaint submitted pursuant to Article 92 of the Staff Regulations falls within the powers delegated by the Director General to the Principal Director of Resources, and since the Principal Director of Resources had sub-delegated his powers to the Head of the Human Resources and Staff Administration, the latter was indeed competent to take the various decisions relating to the handling of the complainant’s internal complaint, including the final impugned decision (see, by analogy, Judgments 3496, consideration 5, and 2495, consideration 7, and, with regard to sub-delegation of powers, Judgments 4283, consideration 4, and 3316, consideration 3). In that regard, contrary to what the complainant maintains, it is irrelevant whether or not the Head of the Human Resources and Staff Administration Service is “in the supervisory line between the complainant and the Director General”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2495, 3316, 3496, 4283
Keywords
delegation of power
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] alleges that there was a conflict of interest affecting one of the members of the Selection Board, as that member was the supervisor of one candidate.
The Tribunal recalls that a lack of impartiality, a bias or a conflict of interest on the part of members of a collegiate body such as a selection board may not be presumed. Any allegation of such matters must therefore be supported by tangible evidence (see, inter alia, Judgments 4451, consideration 16, 4408, consideration 22, and 3438, consideration 8). The mere fact, relied on in the present case, that the supervisor of one candidate was a member of the Selection Board cannot, in itself, be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest. In addition, since the complainant merely makes generalised assertions without adducing any tangible or specific evidence to establish the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of the member of the Selection Board in question, those assertions must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3438, 4408, 4451
Keywords
selection board; personal prejudice; impartiality; conflict of interest
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant complains about what she regards as the excessively long delay in dealing with her internal complaint. While the period of nine months between the submission of the internal complaint that was the subject of the impugned decision and the date on which that decision was delivered undeniably exceeds the period laid down in Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulation by five months, and therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules, the Tribunal considers that the duration of the procedure cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, even though that duration breached the applicable provisions, the complainant has not adduced any specific evidence of injury arising from the delay.
Keywords
time limit; delay
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment.
Keywords
competition; selection procedure; role of the tribunal
|
