Case of K. vs. Eurocontrol – ILO Administrative Tribunal, Judgment No. 5269
The Union Syndicale supported our late comrade Henk, vice president of the USB and union representative at Eurocontrol Brussels, in the appeal he filed with the ILO Administrative Tribunal against Eurocontrol regarding his (deemed unsatisfactory) performance evaluation for the year 2019. In its Judgment No. 5269, handed down on July 16, 2026, the Tribunal ruled in favor of our friend. It identified multiple procedural flaws: a single supervisor serving as both evaluator and countersignatory, objectives that were neither clear nor specific, the late addition of an objective, and the absence of a performance review meeting—and ordered Eurocontrol to pay 7,000 euros in damages for emotional distress, including 2,000 euros for the unreasonable delay in processing the complaint—nearly two and a half years—as well as 8,000 euros in legal costs.
A bittersweet victory: our friend Henk passed away on May 9, 2025, before he could learn of this ruling. It was his brave wife, authorized by the Court to continue the proceedings as his legal heir, who saw the fight through to the end. The Union Syndicale honors his memory and, through this case, reaffirms its unwavering support for any union leader who is the victim of covert repression—a form of repression that rarely skimps on the means used to discriminate against or undermine the integrity of union members.
What are the practical implications of this ruling for Eurocontrol staff?
Performance evaluation procedures.
The ruling reinforces several binding requirements under Implementing Regulation No. 3.
- The evaluator and the countersigning officer must be two different individuals, in order to ensure an impartial and objective evaluation (the combination of these two roles by the same manager constituted a decisive defect).
- Objectives must be clear and precise, in accordance with HR guidelines; an appraisal objective cannot be added late in the process and then held against the employee.
- The appraisal must focus solely on performance during the year in question, and not on the employee’s entire career history.
- The mandatory interview between the employee being evaluated and the evaluator must actually take place.
- Evaluators must avoid gratuitous derogatory comments about “attitude,” which expose the Agency to claims based on damage to reputation.
- The cancellation or withdrawal of a flawed report does not negate the non-pecuniary damage suffered during the period in which the act had its effects: the Agency remains financially liable even after correcting the error, particularly when the departure of superiors makes a new retroactive evaluation impossible.
Internal appeals.
The duty to act promptly is reaffirmed: appeal bodies must render a decision within a reasonable time, and a delay of approximately two and a half years is, in and of itself, grounds for compensation. When the internal procedure is stalled and the civil servant has unsuccessfully pressed for its advancement, a direct petition to the Tribunal is admissible. Finally, the judgment notes that providing the claimant with incorrect information regarding the procedure to follow (telling him to wait for an explicit decision) cannot deprive him of his right to bring an action, since four months of silence already constitutes an implicit decision of rejection that is subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 92, paragraph 2, of the Administrative Regulations in conjunction with Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Source : Tribunal administratif de l’OIT, jugement n° 5269 (K. (n° 2) c. Eurocontrol), 142e session, prononcé le 16 juillet 2026.
