Judgment No. 4759
Decision
The complaint is dismissed, as is the OACPS’s counterclaim.
Summary
The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
time bar; promise; late filing; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organisation challenges the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint on the grounds that the complainant is no longer a member of the OACPS’s staff. However, the Tribunal recalls that, pursuant to Article II, paragraph 6(a), of its Statute, access to the Tribunal is open to any official “even if her or his employment has ceased”.
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; former official; ratione personae
Consideration 5
Extract:
Although the complainant asserts that he lodged an internal complaint in due time, he provides no evidence of this, and the letter sent to the Secretary-General by the Staff Association on 3 July 2020 cannot be regarded as a complaint within the meaning of the Staff Regulations. Similarly, in view of its relevant case law (see, in particular, Judgments 4253, consideration 6, 3619, considerations 14 and 15, and 3148, consideration 7) and the evidence on file, the Tribunal considers that there is nothing to indicate that, in the present case, a formal promise was made to the complainant by the Organisation to reappoint him at a later date. It follows that the complainant cannot rely on the existence of such a promise to justify his inaction in this regard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3148, 3619, 4253
Keywords
promise; late filing
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is settled case law that a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned, save in highly specific situations, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords
general decision
Consideration 10
Extract:
[P]ursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 7B of the Rules of the Tribunal, only a complainant or intervener may request anonymity, since they are the only parties whose names are referred to in the Tribunal’s judgments.
In addition, in view of its special nature and its specific Statute, the Tribunal is not, in any event, bound by the provisions of EU law, such as those of the GDPR (see Judgments 4493, consideration 10, 4167, consideration 7, and 3867, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4167, 4493
Keywords
applicable law; european union; anonymity
|
