Member of an internal body (892,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Member of an internal body
Total judgments found: 6

• Judgment 4566

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges a selection procedure for which he was a member of the Selection Board.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; locus standi; member of an internal body; selection board; selection procedure; staff representative;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant lacks locus standi in his capacity as a staff representative for the reasons given by the Tribunal in its case law (see Judgment 3642, considerations 8 to 14). Secondly, he lacks locus standi in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board. In Judgment 4317, consideration 4, the Tribunal relevantly stated as follows:
  “[...] the Tribunal adopted Judgment 3557, in a summary procedure, where it found that it was clear that the complainant, who was likewise acting in his capacity as a member of a Selection Board, did not have standing to challenge the outcome of the selection procedure. The same reasoning must be applied in the present case as ‘[the complainant] does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute’.
  As a matter of general principle, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, allege and demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgments 3921, consideration 6, and 3168, consideration 9). In accordance with this case law, a member of a board within an international organization, acting in this capacity, may only raise with the Tribunal the defects that have affected her or his prerogatives as a member of the board as defined by the internal provisions (see above-mentioned Judgment 3921, consideration 9). In the present case, the complainant does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment or of board-related internal provisions.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3557, 3642, 3921, 4317
  

  Keywords:

  locus standi; member of an internal body; selection board; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4486

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Munich Staff Committee and of the Central Staff Committee.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  With regard to his standing as an alleged member of the MSC [Munich Staff Committee] and the CSC [Central Staff Committee], as rightly pointed out by the IAC and endorsed by the President, at the time of the appeal, the complainant was not a member of the MSC because he had resigned from it, regardless of the purpose underlying his resignation. He was not a member of the CSC either. Pursuant to Article 2 of the then Election Regulations, “[t]he local section [that is to say the MSC] shall appoint the Munich members of the [CSC]”. Therefore, his election to the MSC did not automatically mean that he was also elected to the CSC. On the contrary, a separate appointment is a prerequisite according to the above provision. The complainant did not produce any evidence that the MSC appointed him as a member of the CSC. Thus, his claims as a staff representative of either the MSC or the CSC, including claims for declaring the composition of the MSC and the CSC void, for recognising his mandate to represent in the CSC the category C employees and for accessing the tools of communication for Staff Committee’s members, are irreceivable ratione personae. Accordingly, his allegation that the denial of his participation in the CSC activities constitutes a violation of the prohibition of non-discrimination and of equal treatment is not receivable either.

  Keywords:

  competence; internal appeals body; member of an internal body; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4419

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; member of an internal body;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  In a judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020, Judgment 4322, there was a conclusive determination that staff members in the position of the complainants had no cause of action to challenge, relevantly, the appointment of Vice-Presidents to the GAC (see Judgment 4322, considerations 8 and 9). Indeed the three complainants in the present proceedings were complainants in the proceedings leading to Judgment 4322. The question of whether the complainants had a cause of action was raised by the Tribunal of its own motion notwithstanding it had not been raised by the parties before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis of the Tribunal in Judgment 4322. Suffice it to note that there are no material factual or legal differences between the circumstances addressed in that judgment and those of the present case [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; member of an internal body; precedent;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4322

  
  130th Session, 2020
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest the appointments of members of the General Advisory Committee for 2014.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; member of an internal body;
  

  Considerations 7-9

  Extract:

  The Tribunal considers that the present case raises a threshold issue that needs to be resolved: whether the complainants’ status as members of the GAC gives them a cause of action to challenge the appointment of other GAC members.
  [...]
  Although the parties did not raise the question before the Tribunal, the Tribunal must, in this case, address the preliminary issue of the complainants’ cause of action of its own motion. Indeed, the existence of a cause of action is a necessary precondition for the Tribunal’s competence. If a complainant does not allege a violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint. The Tribunal’s case law connects this issue to the issue of receivability (see, for example, Judgments 3426, under 16, 3428, under 11, and 3642, under 11).
  Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal shall be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the staff regulations applicable to them. In accordance with this provision, a member of an advisory body within an international organization, acting in that capacity, may only raise before the Tribunal defects which have affected her/his prerogatives as a member of the body as defined by the internal provisions (see, for example, Judgment 3921, under 6 and 9). The composition of an advisory body does not, except in cases involving manifest perversity, affect the prerogatives of that body. In the present case, the complainants do not specifically allege any non-observance of their terms of appointment or the rules applicable to the GAC. Moreover, the appointment of the Administration’s representatives as members of the GAC does not show any manifest perversity. The impugned decision does not have any legal effect on the complainants’ status (see Judgments 2952, under 3, and 3198, under 13).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2952, 3198, 3426, 3428, 3642, 3921
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; member of an internal body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4317

  
  130th Session, 2020
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board, challenges the decision not to allow a staff member holding a fixed-term contract to compete for a permanent post.

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  [I]t is worth noting that after the end of the written procedure in this case, the Tribunal adopted Judgment 3557, in a summary procedure, where it found that it was clear that the complainant, who was likewise acting in his capacity as a member of a Selection Board, did not have standing to challenge the outcome of the selection procedure. The same reasoning must be applied in the present case as “[the complainant] does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute”.
  As a matter of general principle, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, allege and demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgments 3921, consideration 6, and 3168, consideration 9). In accordance with this case law, a member of a board within an international organization, acting in this capacity, may only raise with the Tribunal the defects that have affected her or his prerogatives as a member of the board as defined by the internal provisions (see above-mentioned Judgment 3921, consideration 9).
  
  In light of the above, the complaint is irreceivable in its entirety and must be dismissed.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3557, 3921
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; locus standi; member of an internal body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3534

  
  120th Session, 2015
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The two complainants, who were members of the General Advisory Committee, contest the nomination of the Chairman of the Committee for the year 2010.

  Considerations 2 & 5

  Extract:

  The issue is a confined one. The individual appointed as Chairman was a principal director employed on contract. The complainants argue and the EPO disputes, that the applicable regulatory provisions precluded an employee on contract being appointed to this position.
  [...]
  However, Article 38(2) of the Service Regulations empowered the President to appoint the Chairman and the power was unconfined as to who might be appointed. While Article 2(2) of the Service Regulations is not a model of clear drafting, it is tolerably clear that under the Service Regulations both permanent employees and employees on contract referred to in Article 1 could have been either members of, amongst other bodies, the GAC or chairmen of those bodies. Article 1 made clear that the Service Regulations apply to both permanent employees and “principal directors of the Office employed on contract”. Thus the Service Regulations established that a principal director on contract could be a member of the GAC or appointed as Chairman of the GAC.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; member of an internal body;