X v Secretary-General of the OEEC (Decision No 15)

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Date11 September 1952
CourtAppeals Board (Organization for European Economic Cooperation)
Appeals Board of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation.
Decision No. 15.

International organization — Officials — Termination of contract — Procedural irregularities — Error of fact — Discretionary powers.

The Facts.—On April 16, 1952, Mr. X. was informed that his contract would be terminated, as part of a general measure reducing the staff in his department. On May 26, 1952, he appealed to the Board against this decision and requested his reinstatement as an official in the Organization. He alleged that the decision was vitiated by procedural irregularities, since certain facts concerning other officials—who had been retained in their posts—had been omitted from their files, contrary to the Staff Rules. The Administration's choice of the officials to be retained had therefore, he maintained, been made with an incomplete knowledge of the facts.

Held: that the appeal must be rejected. The procedural irregularities were insufficient, on the facts, to vitiate the decision in dispute.

The Board said: “Mr. X.'s appeal is receivable from a procedural point of view, since the time-limits laid down by Staff Rules 66 (b) and 67 have been observed and the security mentioned in Rule 66 (d) has been duly deposited.

“Mr. X.'s appeal was lodged on May 26, 1952. The Chairman of the Board made use of the power conferred on him by Rule 68 (c) and adjourned the consideration of the appeal in order to deal with it in conjunction with several other appeals during the course of the present session, without exceeding the limit of four months laid down in Rule 68 (c).[1]

“Mr. X., an official holding a position as chauffeur in the Transport Service, was included in a programme for the reduction of staff decided upon by the Council on March 27, 1952, which had the effect of cutting the number of officials in that service from thirty to seven. The termination of his contract was decided upon on April 16, 1952, with effect from July 1, 1952.

“The claimant submits that this step was taken after an irregular procedure; certain facts concerning some of the seven officials who were retained in their posts were not mentioned in their files, contrary to Staff Rule 14 which requires, in the case of each official in grades 1 to 13, the making of a report, at least once a year, indicating the official's professional merits and including, where appropriate, suggestions for his promotion, transfer or termination. Some of these facts were not even reported by the officials'...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT