Judgment No. 4796
Decision
1. The impugned decision of 9 March 2020 is set aside, as are the decisions of 23 March 2016 and 25 July 2016.
2. The EPO shall repay to the complainant the sum of 2,540.82 euros, together with interest calculated as indicated in consideration 12 of the judgment.
3. The Organisation shall pay the complainant costs in the sum of 750 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to deduct from the amount of the education allowance paid in respect of his child the remuneration received by the latter during an internship.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; education expenses
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t is appropriate to recall the basic rules of statutory interpretation defined by the Tribunal’s case law. These state that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning and must be construed objectively in their context and in keeping with their purport and purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4639, consideration 3, 4506, consideration 5, 4066, consideration 7, 4031, consideration 5, and 3744, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3744, 4031, 4066, 4506, 4639
Keywords
interpretation; interpretation of rules
Considerations 3-7 & 10
Extract:
[T]his dispute essentially revolves around the interpretation of the aforementioned provisions of Article 71(9) of the Service Regulations [of the EPO].
[...]
[T]he Tribunal considers it apparent from the provision in question – even though the wording could undoubtedly be better – that the two particular kinds of allowance mentioned are not exhaustive and that allowances other than scholarships and grants, which are only referred to because they are the most common forms of educational assistance, could also give rise to such a deduction. The way in which the words “scholarships” and “grants” appear in the text, being placed in brackets and separated by a comma, rather than by a conjunction such as “or” or “and”, supports this interpretation. This is further confirmed by the fact that Article 71(9) refers to the “deduction [...] of any allowance received from other sources for the child’s education (scholarships, grants)” [...].
In addition, when called upon to rule on complaints challenging the lawfulness of Article 71 of the Service Regulations, the Tribunal stated, in Judgment 2870, consideration 12, that “[p]rovision is also made in Article 71(9) for the deduction of allowances from other sources (e.g. scholarships) payable in respect of the child’s education” [...]. While not entirely addressing the matter at hand in the present case, the wording used by the Tribunal in that sentence was already leading towards the above interpretation.
However, the Tribunal also considers that [...] internship payments made to the child of an employee during an internship carried out with an employer as part of her or his studies [...] do not constitute an allowance received for the child’s education within the meaning of Article 71(9) and cannot, therefore, be lawfully deducted from the amount of the education allowance.
The reference made in that provision to “any allowance received [...] for the child’s education” must be understood as an allowance the purpose of which is to contribute to the expenditure involved in the child’s studies, which, once again, is confirmed by the reference in the text, quoted above, to “any allowance received [...] for the child’s education” [...].
But that is not the purpose of internship payments made by employers to students or pupils carrying out an internship with them as part of their studies. Such payments are principally intended as remuneration for the services provided by the intern to the employer. Even though [...] such payments can certainly not be regarded as a salary, they are still, by their very nature, a form of remuneration made to the child, and not a contribution to the cost of her or his education.
It is true that internship payments can sometimes include a contribution from the employer towards the expenses incurred by the child or by her or his family in connection with the internship. Even on this assumption, however, that is not their essential purpose, which is still to remunerate the intern as described above, and such a contribution cannot, in any event, be regarded as a payment “for the child’s education” within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 71(9).
[...]
The aforementioned Article 71(9) does not provide, in letter or in spirit, that any allowance which derives from a source other than the Office and which could potentially be set towards those costs can be deducted from the amount of the education allowance. It only permits the deduction of those allowances the specific purpose of which is to contribute to the expenditure connected with the child’s studies, which, as already stated, is not the case with internship payments.
[...]
It follows from the[se] considerations that [...] the EPO was wrong to deduct the amount of the internship payments made to the complainant’s son from the amount of the education allowance paid to the complainant and that, in making such a deduction, the EPO breached the aforementioned provisions of Article 71 of the Service Regulations [...]
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2870
Keywords
interpretation; education expenses; interpretation of rules
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A]n order for the interest in question to be compounded, as requested by the complainant, is not appropriate. Following the practice developed by the Tribunal through its case law, the interest to be added to certain monetary awards is, in principle, simple interest, compound interest being awarded only in exceptional circumstances (see, in particular, Judgments 4235, consideration 15, 3013, consideration 3, and 802, consideration 4). There are no special circumstances in the present case to justify an order for compound interest.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 802, 4235
Keywords
interest on damages
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant also seeks moral damages for the unreasonable duration of the internal appeal procedure. But the Tribunal notes that nowhere in his submissions does the complainant, who has already been awarded 250 euros to this effect under the impugned decision itself, explain why that sum is insufficient to compensate him for the whole of the injury in question. This claim must, in the circumstances, be dismissed.
Keywords
delay in internal procedure
Consideration 16
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant seeks the award of “any other relief which the Tribunal considers just and equitable”, a claim worded in this way is, in any event, too vague to be regarded as receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4719, consideration 7, 4602, consideration 8, and 550, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 550, 4602, 4719
Keywords
claim; formal requirements
|
