Jugement n° 4798
Décision
1. The complaints are dismissed.
2. The counterclaim for costs is also dismissed.
Synthèse
The complainant contests the closure of an area of competence in the Berlin sub-office, and her reassignment.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés
Intérêt à agir; Réaffectation; Réorganisation; Requête rejetée
Considérant 3
Extrait:
The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members, involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). The Tribunal may interfere only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority, or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5 and 3488, consideration 3).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240
Mots-clés
Réaffectation; Réorganisation; Pouvoir d'appréciation
Considérant 3
Extrait:
The Tribunal recalls that the complainant’s claims alleging undue interference in her work in the Examining Division have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal, in Judgment 4417. The Tribunal held that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal (see Judgment 4417, considerations 7 and 8) […].
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4417
Mots-clés
Intérêt à agir; Décision administrative
Considérant 3
Extrait:
The complainant further contends that the closure of the area of competence G01R in Berlin did not increase efficiency as indicated by the EPO. However, the complainant does not establish procedural or substantive errors of this decision, which is organizational in nature, and thus involved the exercise of a wide discretionary power. The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide which of the many possible restructuring options should be chosen by the Organisation.
Mots-clés
Réorganisation; Pouvoir d'appréciation
Considérant 12
Extrait:
The counterclaim for costs filed by the Organisation regarding the fourteenth complaint is rejected. The Tribunal will avail itself of the possibility to condemn a complainant to costs only in exceptional situations. Indeed, it is essential that the Tribunal should be open and accessible to international civil servants without the dissuasive and chilling effect of possible adverse awards of that kind. In the instant case, the complaints cannot be regarded as manifestly vexatious (see Judgment 4143, consideration 7).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4143
Mots-clés
Demande reconventionnelle
| 
