At the OIE, two senior staff members, Messrs Guy Jannot and Thierry Chillaud, Head of the Administrative and Financial Department and Head of the Information and International Trade Department, respectively, are French civil servants on loan from the French Ministry of Agriculture to the OIE. Whether Director General Jean Blancou shares this status is unknown to the Complainant.

On 14 March 1991, Director General Blancou took Decision 20.203. It is not clear which of this decision’s characteristics is the most noteworthy: its breach of OIE and French civil service rules; its disregard of correct procedure and equity between staff members; or its self-interested nature on behalf of Messrs Blancou, Chillaud and Jannot. However one looks at the issue, it is highly demonstrative of the OIE management’s attitude towards the right’s of staff and proper procedure and therefore of direct relevance to the Complainant’s claim.

The OIE’s statutory texts (cf. Document 63) stipulate that the OIE International Committee, assisted by the Administrative Commission, approves the annual accounts and budget (1) and determines the amount to be withheld for staff pensions (2). Modifications to OIE statutory texts which involve new financial charges must be approved by the Member States (3) and the Director General shall present to the International Committee an annual report on his management. (4) Furthermore, the Committee sets the staff regulations and makes “any other provisions necessary for the functioning of the Office. Participating States shall be informed of all such regulations and provisions, which may not be modified without their consent.” (5)

The OIE’s statutory texts stipulate that the staff members benefit from an OIE Pension Fund (6), closely linked to the French State Pension Fund. The Internal Rules of the OIE Pension Fund stipulate that it is administrated by the Director General with wide-ranging powers but under the supervision of the External Auditor appointed by the International Committee.(7, 8) Furthermore, the Internal Rules stipulate that the accumulated amount of the state and OIE pensions can not exceed 80% of the reference salary.(9)

In 1989, the year Dr Jean Blancou became Director General, the French Prime Minister’s office, in a position-paper on the career and pension rules for French civil servants on loan to international organisations, stated:

Finally, article L.87 permits the addition of pensions earned for services for on the one hand the French administration and for an intergovernmental organisation on the other, with the clear understanding that the same period of service can not be taken into account by two different pension systems.(10)

Article 1: For the staff members mentioned above, the words “the accumulated amount of the French social security system’s pension and the OIE’s complementary pension” in Article 3 (c) of the Appendix to the Internal Rules of OIE Pension Fund ... are replaced by “the amount of the complementary pension.(11)

Article 2: An additional employer contribution, corresponding to the benefits mentioned in Article 1, shall be paid by the OIE...(12)

Article 3: Article 1 of the Appendix to the Internal Rules of OIE Pension Fund is replaced by ”belonging to either of the categories I, II, III or IV defined in Appendix B to the Headquarters Agreement signed on 21 February 1977.” (13)

Article 1 permits French civil servants on loan to the OIE to benefit from the OIE Pension Fund, something they were not allowed to do previously as they, due to their status, already have full coverage through their French civil service pension;

Article 1 present French civil servants on loan to the OIE with the opportunity to circumvent the rules of their civil service and thereby illicitly benefit from two pension plans; a situation expressly forbidden in the text from the French Prime Minister’s office;

Article 1 places French civil servants on loan to the OIE on a privileged basis compared to that of other OIE staff, as they benefit from full job security (other staff members do not benefit from unemployment insurance or the automatic grade advancement of French civil servants);

Article 2 modified an OIE statutory text and involved new financial charges to the OIE;

Article 3 would mean that point (b) of Article 1 of the Appendix to the Internal Rules was dropped. Point (b) seems to have excluded the Director General from benefiting from the OIE Pension. (14) It is noteworthy that this article of the Director General’s decision is not given in the OIE publication “Textes applicables aux personnel” in which this change is simply described as “modifies article 1.a of the Appendix to the Internal Rules of the OIE’s Pension Fund linked to social security.” (15)

Legal status of Decision 20.203:

Although the Internal Rules of the OIE’s Pension Fund give the Director General wide powers to manage the OIE Pension Fund, these powers emanate from the International Committee and any change to these rules must be made according to the procedures and by the authority creating them. The Director General did not create the Internal Rules, the OIE International Committee did; therefore the Director General acted ultra vires when taking Decision 20.203;

Decision 20.203 modified a statutory text of the OIE and should have been taken by the OIE’s Member States. Such approval was neither sought, nor obtained by the Director General. The text of his decision clearly proves this as it does not refer to even consultation with the OIE Administrative Commission, less a Resolution passed by the International Committee. This is in clear breach of Article 2 of the OIE’s Organic Rules and Article 15 of the OIE’s Organic Statutes. (16)

Decision 20.203, by giving French civil servants and himself access to the OIE Pension, created new financial charges to the OIE. This is in breach of Article 2 of the OIE’s Organic Rules.

Decision 20.203 created a situation in which a certain group of staff members, French civil servants, were granted a privileged position open to them only in their capacity as French civil servants and citizens. (17) This is in breach of the norm calling for equal treatment of staff members.

The manner by which the Director General took the decision also proves its abusiveness:

On 8 March 1991, in a meeting concerning the OIE Pension Fund and in which the Director General, the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, the Chartered Accountant and the two Staff Representatives to the Fund participated, the Director General proposed changes to the Internal Rules of the OIE Pension Fund; changes which were to become Decision 20.203.

On 13 March 1991, the Staff Representatives informed the Director General that they would deliver a reasoned opinion on the Director General’s proposal of 8 March. On 14 March 1991, Director General Blancou, took Decision 20.203. It is noteworthy that the Director General claims that the Staff Representatives had been heard (cf. Document 62).

On 4 April 1991, the Staff Representatives informed the Director General and Head of the Administrative and Financial Department of their opposition to the Director General’s proposal/decision.(18) The Staff Representatives presented several arguments against the proposal (creation of privilege, illegality vis-à-vis French legislation) and presented alternatives (de-linking from the French system, unemployment insurance for other OIE staff). Furthermore, the Staff Representative protested against the fact that the Director General had taken Decision 20.203 without awaiting their opinion.

On 23 December 1991, the legal council paid by the OIE, rendered his opinion that the Director General’s Decision 20.203 of 14 March was legal and appropriate. (19)

On 27 January 1992, the Staff Representatives wrote to the Director General to protest against the fact that he had not agreed to pay for a counter-opinion to that paid by the OIE and informed him of the results of the reasoned opinion they had obtained from free legal council.

The opinion obtained by the Staff Representatives (20) agreed with their analysis of the decision. The opinion stressed that the International Committee was the appropriate body to take decision 20.203 as the change of a rule must be made according to the procedure used to create it. It was noted that there appeared to exist no calculation of the financial effects of decision 20.203 although the OIE’s rules state that the OIE’s assets are to cover any shortfall.

On 29 January 1992, Director General Blancou, sent a note, drafted by the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, Mr Guy Jannot (21), to all staff informing them of Decision 20.203. With this note the OIE paid lawyer’s opinion on the decision was attached.

On 7 February 1992, the Head of the Information and International Trade Department, Mr Thierry Chillaud, wrote an open letter (22), distributed to all staff members. In his letter he made personal attacks on the Staff Representatives and clearly indicated that the Administrative Commission and the International Committee of the OIE had not been informed of the Decision 20.203 of 14 March 1991. He also declared himself candidate as Staff Representative.

In summary:

The Director General abused his authority in relation to the OIE’s Member States and took a decision that served his own interests and those of French civil servants on loan to the OIE;

The Director General completely disregarded the opinion and rights of the Staff Representatives, and thereby the rights of all staff members.

The sequence of events and legal texts described above clearly show the OIE management’s complete disregard for correct procedure and fair treatment, and it relates directly to the Complainant’s experience with and claim against the OIE.

(1) OIE Organic Statutes, Article 15
(2) OIE Organic Statutes, Article 14
(3) OIE Organic Rules, Article 2
(4) OIE General Rules, Article 34
(5) OIE Organic Statutes, Article 15
(6) OIE Staff Rules, Article 60.5 (OIE, “Textes applicables au personnel,” p. 35)
(7) Internal Rules of the OIE’s Pension Fund, Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 (OIE, “Textes appl. au pers.,” p. 56-57)
(8) The External Auditor being Mr Jacques Berthe, whose auditing has been discussed in detail under 2.2.5.2.
(9) Appendix to the Internal Rules of OIE’s Pension Fund, Article 3(c) (OIE, “Textes appl. au pers.,” p. 64).
(10) Dfi, Premier Ministre - Le Délégué aux fonctionnaires internationaux: “Dossier d’information N° 6 - Les fonctionnaires français de l’état dans les organisations internationales intergouvernementales,” 12/1989.
(11) OIE, “Textes applicables au personnel,” p. 66
(12) OIE, “Textes applicables au personnel,” p. 67
(13) OIE, “Textes applicables au personnel,” p. 67
(14) Point (b) required that beneficiaries of the complementary OIE Pension Fund hold contracts according to articles 40.6 and 40.7 of the Staff Rules; neither of these articles apply to the Director General.
(15) Which is a rather odd statement, as the exact text of article 1.a was: ”belonging to either of the categories I, II, III or IV defined in Appendix B to the Headquarters Agreement signed on 21 February 1977.”
(16) The Complainant has not been able to obtain a copy of the Annual Report for the year in question. In that report any approval or Committee Resolution granting French civil servants preferential status would be noted. If the OIE were to produce such materials or any other having bearing on this matter, the Complainant reserves the right to verify and respond.
(17) It is noteworthy that these persons could have de-linked themselves from the French civil service’s pension, by declaring themselves hors cadre, and thereby be able to partake in the OIE Pension Fund in harmony with pre-20.203 Decision rules and French regulations (but, of course, this would have put on hold their civil service pension for the duration of their hors cadre period...).
(18) Staff Representatives, “Avis N° 1, remis à Monsieur le Directeur Général de l’OIE les 4 avril 1991 et à Monsieur le Chef du Service administratif le 4 avril 1991 - Décision 20.203 du 14 mars 1991 - Agents en détachement à l’OIE,” 4 avril 1991.
(19) Jean-Didier Sicault, “Avis juridique sur la décision N° 20.203 du Directeur général de l’O.I.E. en date du 14 mars 1991, relative au régime de retraite applicable aux agents non assujetis au risque vieillesse de la sécurité social française.”
(20) “Avis sur la responsabilité des représentants du personnel à la Caisse de Retraite complémentaire de l’OIE et sur la Décision N° 20.203 du Directeur Général de l’OIE en date du 14 mars 1991.”
(21) As shows the reference, GJ/SC 20.048, meaning that Guy Jannot was the author.
(22) Thierry Chillaud, “Lettre ouverte à Mademoiselle Gill Dimiltis [sic, should be Dilmitis] et Monsieur Bernard Vannereau.”