X v Secretary-General of the OEEC (Decision No 6)

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Date: 31 July 1950
• Court: Appeals Board (Organization for European Economic Cooperation)

Appeals Board of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation.

Decision No. 6.

International organization — Officials — Types of contract — Termination of contract — Damages — Discretionary power.

The Facts.—Mr. X. was recruited as an expert by a temporary contract on May 15, 1948. On February 15, 1950, he was informed of the termination of his contract. On March 31, 1950, it was decided to grant him a termination allowance of 84,000 Fr. frs. On May 19, 1950, he lodged an appeal, by which (i) he prayed that his contractual situation, from May 15, 1948, to February 15, 1950, should be retroactively “regularized”, either by the offer of a contract as Secretary of a Committee, or by an increase in salary, in keeping with the importance of the duties which he had actually performed; (ii) challenged the legal validity of the termination of his contract, on the ground that the specific contract so terminated had not been signed by him and was therefore void; and (iii) requested the Tribunal to specify the terms of his future co-operation with O.E.E.C.

Held: (i) that Mr. X.'s claim for the “regularization” of his position was incompatible both with the terms of his contract and with the facts. Any disappointment which he might have suffered had already been compensated by the grant of a termination allowance; (ii) that the termination was in accordance with Mr. X.'s original contract; and (iii) that the Board had no jurisdiction to specify the terms of his future co-operation with O.E.E.C.

The Board said: “The decision which gave rise to the present action was communicated to Mr. X. on February 15, 1950, and it was not until April 5, 1950, that Mr. X. asked that his appeal should be referred to the Appeals Board. By that time the time-limit of forty days, laid down in Article 2 (b) of the Secretary-General's Rules of January 8, 1950, concerning the Appeals Board, had expired (the expiry date being March 27, 1950).

“However, during the transitional period, which is not yet over, it was only after the latter date that the claimant had notice of the possibility of appealing to the Appeals Board. It is therefore appropriate to apply the final sentence of Article 2 (b), which permits the Board in exceptional cases to accept claims brought after the statutory time-limits, and to regard Mr. X.'s appeal as receivable from a procedural point of view.

“Mr. X. was recruited by the Service Technique des Conférences Internationales on a temporary contract, concluded...