Judgment No. 4804
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
injunction; administrative decision; defamation; complaint dismissed; confidentiality
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant applies for oral proceedings. He does not list witnesses. The parties have presented ample written submissions and documents to permit the Tribunal to reach an informed and just decision on the case. The request for oral proceedings is, therefore, rejected.
Keywords
oral proceedings
Consideration 2
Extract:
By one of his claims, the complainant asks the Tribunal to order that the EPO publish, in the EPO Gazette and/or on the intranet, the President’s […] decision on internal appeal RI/31/08 […], accompanied by a summary of the facts approved by himself. However, the Tribunal is not competent to make orders of this kind against international organisations (see Judgments 4065, consideration 9, 4039, consideration 17, and 2058, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2058, 4039, 4065
Keywords
competence of tribunal; publication; injunction
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant further asks the Tribunal to order that document CA/03/12 be withdrawn and to declare that the respective General Advisory Committee (GAC) consultation was flawed and invalid. The Tribunal notes that document CA/03/12 was not a decision, much less a final decision, but merely the President’s proposal for the amendment of Article 70a of the Service Regulations and Circular No. 301 (Rev. 1). Therefore, it is not challengeable before the Tribunal (see Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6). […] Therefore this claim is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860
Keywords
administrative decision
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that staff members have a right to bring complaints before the Tribunal and there should be no negative implications arising from the exercise of that right.
Keywords
complaint; judicial review; retaliation
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal holds that […] the statement regarding a pending case lodged by the complainant was presented in a neutral way, with no negative comments. It was not a defamatory statement warranting relief, because it was truthful and did not tarnish the reputation of the complainant (see Judgment 4478, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4478
Keywords
defamation; professional reputation; relief claimed
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the complainant bears the burden of proof that he suffered moral injury (see Judgments 4522, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein, and 4012, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4012, 4522
Keywords
moral injury; burden of proof
Consideration 3
Extract:
[E]ven though the breach of confidentiality is proven (as it has been acknowledged by the EPO), there is no evidence that the complainant suffered any damage as a result of that breach. Considering all the facts and relevant circumstances of the present case, […] the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s request for damages is unsubstantiated.
Keywords
moral injury; burden of proof; moral damages; breach of confidentiality; confidentiality
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay in internal proceedings will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as a lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal (see Judgments 4563, consideration 14, and 3160, considerations 16 and 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4563
Keywords
moral injury; moral damages; delay in internal procedure
| 
