X v Secretary-General of the OEEC (Decision No 5)

JurisdictionEuropean Union
CourtAppeals Board (Organization for European Economic Cooperation)
Date26 April 1950
Appeals Board of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation.
Decision No. 5.

International organization — Officials — Termination of contract — Termination during sick leave — Reappointment as auxiliary.

The Facts.—On November 22, 1949, Mrs. X. was informed that her contract would be terminated. She was later offered, and accepted, a new contract as Auxiliary (i.e., a temporary official). On February 17, 1950, she instituted proceedings, claiming: (i) annulment of the decision to terminate her contract, on the grounds that the decision was based on the abolition of her post, which had not in fact taken place, and that the decision had been taken while she had been on sick leave and was thus contrary to Staff Rules; and (ii) reclassification as an Assistant, instead of as an Auxiliary, with payment of the sums which would thereby become due, on the grounds that she carried out the work of an Assistant and that there was no reason why she should receive a contract as an Auxiliary.

Held: that the appeal must be rejected. The claimant's new contract described her as an Auxiliary, and that was conclusive. On the facts, and on a correct interpretation of the Staff Rules, the original termination was valid.

The Board said: “Mrs. X.'s action is receivable from a procedural point of view, the statutory time-limits having been respected. It is true that Mrs. X. was late in depositing the security provided for in Article 2 (d) of the Rules of January 8, 1950, of the Appeals Board; but, during the current transitional period, the Board, without thereby intending to create a precedent for the future, considers that it would be inappropriate to regard that time-limit as having an imperative character.

“Neither the nature of the duties actually carried out by the claimant, nor the fact that she had passed an aptitude test for promotion to the post of stencil-correcter, could confer on her a right to obtain a given grade. In addition, the claimant's contentions on this point conflict with the provisions of the contract which she signed, and contracts constitute law for the parties.

“When it was decided, on November 22, 1949, to terminate the claimant's contract, she had voluntarily resumed her...

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