Judgment No. 4700
Decision
1. The decision of 6 June 2019 of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit of the Eurocontrol Agency is set aside.
2. Eurocontrol shall pay the complainant damages in the total amount of 2,000 euros.
3. It shall also pay the complainant 4,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
5. Eurocontrol shall pay damages in the total amount of 2,000 euros to each of the interveners.
Summary
The complainant challenges measures reorganising his working time.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; working conditions
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal notes first of all that, as part of his claims, the complainant asks for three declarations to be made. However, it is settled case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue declarations of law of this kind (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 6, 4492, consideration 8, 4246, consideration 11, and 3876, consideration 2). Such claims are irreceivable and must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876, 4246, 4492, 4637
Keywords
declaration of law
Consideration 4
Extract:
[I]n the impugned decision, the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit did not explain why the majority view of the three members of the Committee who had concluded that this was not a question of a simple managerial decision should be departed from in this way. Neither did she explain why a reduction from three to two officials did not constitute a change in working conditions, notwithstanding the fact that the measure was adopted pursuant to a rule of application (Rule of Application No. 29) specifically dealing with the working conditions of DNM operational staff.
Under settled case law, the executive head of an international organisation, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see Judgment 4437, consideration 19, and the case law cited therein). As the Tribunal also recalled in Judgment 3695, consideration 9, when the executive head of an organisation “fail[s] to explain, in any satisfactory and persuasive way, why the recommendations of the [appeals body], whether the majority or the minority, should be rejected, [f]or this reason alone the impugned decision rejecting [a] complainant’s appeal [...]should be set aside” (see also, in this respect, Judgment 3161, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 3695, 4437
Keywords
motivation
Consideration 4
Extract:
In stating that she shared an opinion that none of the members in fact held, the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit ultimately failed to provide any reasons for her decision in this regard. It is well established by the case law that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken (see, for example, Judgment 4164, consideration 11) and an absence of reasons clearly does not satisfy this minimum standard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4164
Keywords
motivation
Consideration 6
Extract:
With regard to the complainant’s claim for 50,000 euros for the moral injury he alleges he has suffered, the Tribunal notes that any moral injury caused to the complainant by the disputed decisions, for which he adduces no evidence, appears to be negligible in the circumstances of the case, and warrants no compensation.
Keywords
moral injury
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he fact that the insufficient and deficient reasoning in the impugned decision breached the complainant’s right to a due internal appeals procedure undoubtedly caused him moral injury, which warrants an award of damages. The Tribunal considers that this injury will be fairly redressed, in this case, by awarding compensation to the complainant under this head in the amount of 1,000 euros.
Keywords
moral injury; motivation
Consideration 7
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for an award of 8,000 euros for the delay in dealing with his internal complaint, the Tribunal notes that this internal complaint was lodged on 16 April 2018 and that the impugned decision is dated 6 June 2019. This period of almost 14 months far exceeds the period laid down by Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, which stipulates that the Director General is to provide his reasoned decision within four months. This therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules and the Tribunal considers the delay to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4635, consideration 8). Although the length of the delay in the present case is significant, the adverse effects of that delay on the complainant are minimal in the circumstances. The Tribunal considers that the injury suffered will be fairly redressed by awarding him 1,000 euros in compensation under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4635
Keywords
moral injury; time limit; delay in internal procedure
Consideration 8
Extract:
The five officials who filed applications to intervene consider themselves to be in a similar situation to that of the complainant in fact and in law, which was acknowledged by the Organisation in its comments on their applications. It is therefore appropriate for the Tribunal to allow these applications to intervene. As a consequence, compensation of 1,000 euros for the breach of their right of appeal and 1,000 euros for the delay in dealing with their internal complaints will also be awarded to each of the interveners.
Keywords
intervention; interveners
|
