Judgment 966
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3, Summary
Extract:
The complainant argues that because she had 55 months' seniority at step 11, the upper limit, in her original grade, she should have been granted two further steps on promotion. The Tribunal observes that the Staff Regulations do not provide for the calculation of notional steps in dealing with promotion.
Keywords:
consequence; promotion; seniority; top step;
Judgment 962
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Paragraph 4 of Circular 34 of 15 May 1979 says that "for the purpose of calculating seniority for advancement in the prescribed steps within the relevant grade, the period of part-time work will be taken into account in the same way as in the case of normal full-time work". The Tribunal holds that the EPO's practice of counting part-time work towards seniority for promotion on a pro-rata basis on the principle that promotion is a reward for service rendered is in no way at odds with the guidelines in the material circular as the complainant mistakenly argues.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 4 OF CIRCULAR 34 OF 15 MAY 1979
Keywords:
consequence; difference; part-time employment; professional experience; promotion; proportionality; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 957
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contends that his professional experience was not properly reckoned in accordance with Circular 144 of 2 September 1985. He alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as his seniority was lower than that granted to someone with equivalent professional experience recruited as an A3 examiner. His plea fails "because the material provisions of the service regulations deal with promotion within the organisation as distinct from the attributions of grade and step on appointment: the comparison he is drawing is between staff members who are not in the same position in law."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 144
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 953
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The organisation has not discriminated against the complainant. Appointment is different from promotion and different rules may apply in determining the step due on appointment and the step due on promotion."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Consideration 2, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was promoted from grade A.2 to grade A.3 as from 1 March 1987. He submits that the promotion should have taken effect as from 1 August 1985, the date by which his credited experience had come to eight years, in accordance with point ii.2 of Circular 144. However, as required by Article 49[7] of the EPO Service Regulations, the complainant also had to have at least two years' service in his grade in the office in order to qualify for promotion. As the complainant did not meet the latter requirement until 1 March 1987, the Tribunal held that the impugned decision was correct.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49.7 OF EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS; POINT II.2 OF EPO CIRCULAR 144 OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1985
Keywords:
condition; date; effective date; grade; professional experience; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 943
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was promoted from grade A.3, step 11, the highest step in that grade, where he had twelve months' seniority, to grade A.4, step 8, with no seniority. He claims the right to have the twelve months' seniority carried forward. The Tribunal holds that the claim is groundless. In accordance with the Service Regulations the complainant was promoted to "the lowest step in A.4 which carried a higher basic salary than what he had received at his step in A.3 increased by one twelve-monthly incremental step in that grade."
Keywords:
consequence; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step; top step;
Judgment 908
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The rule on promotion in the EPO is not to take account of professional experience gained before the age of 25. The complainant contends that new guidelines calling for "minimum age requirements" superseded the rule. Having considered the new guidelines, the Tribunal finds that the 25-year rule has not been changed since the minimum age requirement has exactly the same effect.
Keywords:
age limit; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 895
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant contends that his seniority should be reckoned from the date at which he received a technical school diploma, before earning his university engineering degree. He submits that three British universities regard the technical school diploma as equivalent to a British Bachelor of Science degree. The Tribunal holds that "until there is a common system of scientific diplomas and degrees in Europe there are bound to be differences between the British and Dutch systems. In the circumstances, recognising such differences is not in breach of the principle of equal treatment."
Keywords:
date; degree; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 886
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 855, "under 16, the Tribunal upheld its earlier ruling in Judgment 657 of 18 March 1985 [...]: there was nothing improper about applying the eight-year rule, which was indeed in keeping with the Administrative Council's guidelines. [The complainant] had no right to fare better on the strength of a method of reckoning that had been superseded by the time he took up duty, the less so since he had been told of the terms of appointment in force at the time and had consented to them."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 657, 855
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; appointment; date; enforcement; professional experience; provision; reckoning; seniority; terms of appointment;
Judgment 884
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant seeks to have his professional experience reckoned anew. He contends that new guidelines supersede the rule precluding the reckoning of experience gained before the age of twenty-five. The Tribunal holds that, although replacement of the rule has been proposed, "until a decision has been taken by the competent authority the 25-year rule remains in force."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; age limit; amendment to the rules; condition; professional experience; proposal; provision; reckoning; seniority;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An official has no right to promotion simply because he has the minimum seniority required for it. Seniority is not the only criterion for promotion and the President has discretion in the matter."
Keywords:
condition; discretion; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 881
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The complainant asks that his professional experience be reckoned anew. "Professional experience and further studies will count under the guidelines only if subsequent to the date of the degree or diploma that qualifies for recruitment. [...] Periods of study, training or other experience prior to obtaining the professional qualification required for appointment to the EPO do form part of the qualification for which they constitute preparation and cannot count all over again as professional experience."
Keywords:
appointment; condition; degree; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 861
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant was recruited and graded on the strength of his degree. It is clear from [the circular] that those who get in on their university training will be credited only with professional experience gained after the award of the qualifying degree."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; date; degree; interpretation; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 851
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"As the Tribunal ruled in Judgment 819 [...], it is not discriminatory to credit military and comparable service in full; indeed the purpose and the effect are to restore parity between those whose professional training has been held up by having to serve in the national interest and those who have been able to get on with their training without discharging that duty."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 819
Keywords:
equal treatment; military service; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"There is no breach of the principle of equal treatment in the fact that the guidelines, so as to attract qualified people, set a higher value on a few kinds of experience, particularly those that are closely relevant to EPO work."
Keywords:
difference; equal treatment; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Some differences will have to be allowed in the content and standard of engineering degrees until there is international standardisation. For an international organisation like the EPO the only fair and practical approach is to demand for an examiner's post the qualifications required for equivalent duties in the applicant's home country."
Keywords:
date; degree; difference; equal treatment; general principle; professional experience; reckoning; seniority; terms of appointment;
Summary
Extract:
The complainant objects to provisions in the new guidelines which discount periods of professional activity to the detriment of staff members on duty at 31 December 1984, since such experience may, in certain cases, be counted in full only for staff recruited after that date. The Tribunal observes that the Circular concerns recruitment and is intended to draw the skilled people needed by the Organisation. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the distinction at issue answers a need within the Organisation.
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; equal treatment; organisation's interest; professional experience; provision; reckoning; seniority; terms of appointment;
Considerations 22-23
Extract:
Circular 144 limits total reckonable experience to twelve years. The purpose of this provision is "to deter late-comers and those who would otherwise hamper the advancement of others who have preferred to spend most of their career in the EPO. [This limit] reflects a reasonable policy on recruitment and career development."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 144
Keywords:
administrative instruction; career; limits; organisation's interest; professional experience; purpose; reckoning; seniority; terms of appointment;
Judgment 850
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
The complainant claims that useful experience he gained doing scientific work before receiving the academic degree on the strength of which he was appointed to the Office should count. That degree "is the qualification that determines what prior experience shall count. [...] The complainant may not avail himself of the opportunities provided by the [new] guidelines in favour of staff members who have been admitted as exceptional cases on the strength of their practical experience. The appointment of such staff members presupposes in each case a specific assessment of their experience, and no such assessment is made for university graduates."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; date; degree; equal treatment; professional experience; reckoning; seniority; terms of appointment;
Judgment 847
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
What the complainant "is really challenging is the reckoning of his seniority for promotion as originally determined. He could of course at one time have challenged it but [...] it is now too late."
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; professional experience; receivability of the complaint; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 819
62nd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"'Periods of professional experience after completion of studies may be credited only from the documented date on which university studies were successfully completed'. Military or 'comparable' service counts as reckonable professional experience, [...] no distinction [being made] between periods before and after graduation. [...] Yet the impugned decision was no breach of the principle of equality: the principle holds good only as between those who are in the same position in fact and in law".
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 144
Keywords:
date; degree; equal treatment; military service; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 818
62nd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant may "impugn the decision because it was based on a new method of reckoning. The change is of such a kind as to warrant challenging a method that has the effect of revising the system of steps within grade."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; general decision; professional experience; provision; receivability of the complaint; reckoning; seniority;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal will [...] consider [...] whether the purpose or even the mere effect of the rule is to put some members of the staff at a severe disadvantage. If the new method of reckoning seniority did have that effect the Tribunal would have to see whether it was warranted by broader considerations, the organisation being allowed a large degree of discretion in the matter."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; discretion; equal treatment; judicial review; professional experience; provision; reckoning; seniority; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 755
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The distinction between the reckoning for starting step and the reckoning for promotion is plain from the actual wording of the rules. The distinction warrants different treatment, and there is no breach of the principle of equality where the treatment is a fair, reasonable and logical outcome of circumstantial differences."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 739
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In this case, the Office took the view that the Council's new guidelines on how professional experience should count in the reckoning of seniority did not apply to the complainant. "The EPO was therefore under no duty to inform the complainant of the guidelines or to explain to him how his own position differed from that of staff members to whom the guidelines applied."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; decision; duty to inform; executive body; organisation's duties; professional experience; provision; reckoning; seniority;
Summary
Extract:
In 1984, after the President of the Office adopted new rules to take account of the Tribunal's case law, the complainant was awarded a further step in his grade and additional seniority. He is asking that the impugned decision take effect not as from 1 January 1984 as called for by the new rules but as from 1 June 1982, the date when he took up his appointment. The plea fails. The Tribunal observes that, far from discriminating, the impugned decision corrects an existing element of inequality and if there remains inequality it is due to the terms of the complainant's appointment, which were not challenged within the prescribed time limits.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; date; effective date; enforcement; equal treatment; grade; professional experience; provision; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 734
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant alleges breach of the principle of equality by a change in the rules governing the reckoning of professional experience from 1 January 1981 which is unfavourable to officials who, like himself, were recruited after that date. The Tribunal holds that the principle of equality does not require that officials appointed at different times should be treated alike.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 694, 695
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; appointment; date; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; professional experience; provision; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 721
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As regards determination of step, the Tribunal merely observes that the President has recently issued instructions which are more favourable to the staff but the EPO is refusing to apply them to former institute officials. The Tribunal sees no reason of law or equity for such discrimination and for such unfair treatment of staff members".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; enforcement; equal treatment; provision; reckoning; seniority;
