The EAC administration has been exposed since the recent annulment by the Administrative Court of its decision, in June 2016, to appoint Makis Kontos as Executive Director of Networks, despite the fact that the appointee had significantly less experience than at least three of his fellow candidates.
The EAC is more exposed than the fact that four months after the court annulled the decision it has not made public any decision to remedy the situation or to re-announce the position, with the result that Mr. Kontos continues to serve as executive director, until there was the decision of the Administrative Court! There are other vacancies in the EAC, which are filled for years by deputies, something that is criticized by senior and top executives of the organization.
We tried to find out the intentions of the EAC regarding the handling of this case and the answer we got was that this is an issue that concerns the EAC and personal data of its executives, therefore “nothing can be said”! With the difference that we are talking about a semi-governmental organization, which can not rely only on personal data, which are in any case included in the decision of the Administrative Court, in order to avoid taking responsibility for (another) decision of appointment – promotion that is annulled, but also for his oligarchy to take decisions in the direction indicated by the court decision.
It should be noted that the process by which the EAC announced this position (as well as others at the top of the pyramid) in 2016, had been strongly challenged since then, with protests and other interventions by executives of the organization, some of which attributed to members of the administration and management intend to suit specific executives of younger age, less experience and lower in the hierarchy, than other candidates, possibly taking into account party or personal criteria and expediencies.
The then BoD of the EAC bypassed the protests, announced top positions in the hierarchy as positions of first appointment and promotion, so that senior officials from lower positions in the structure could also claim, excluded from the appointments executives with longer seniority and the final decision was made by the executives The executive director of Networks was canceled last November, without ruling out the same fate of other appointments made at the time, which were also challenged.
Appeals against the specific decision of the BoD. Giorgos Asiikalis, Costas Gavriilidis and Frangos Frangoulidis, who had a legal interest, asserted, together with Makis Kontos and seven others, the position of Executive Director of Networks.
The history of the appointment
According to the history of the canceled appointment, as recorded in the decision of the Administrative Court:
* On 19/4/2016, the EAC published the announcement of a position of Executive Director of Networks, Scale D, in the Network Business Unit, position of First Appointment. 11 people applied for interest.
* On 12/5/2016 it was judged by the Advisory Subcommittee of the Authority for Personnel Affairs (S.Y.) before which a preliminary evaluation of the applications was made, that all the candidates meet the required qualifications of the Service Plan of the disputed position.
* At the meeting of the Authority, dated 17/5/2016, the minutes of the S.Y. were presented, as well as the letter of the Deputy General Manager, dated 13/5/2016, and the S.Y. was authorized. to proceed with the oral examination of all candidates, which took place on 24/5/2016 and 25/5/2016.
* At the meeting of 31/5/2016, S.Y. unanimously decided to nominate five candidates to the Authority, among them the applicants Asiikalis and Gavriilidis, as well as Makis Kontos.
* After accepting the proposal of S.Y., the candidates attended an oral interview at the meeting of the Authority dated 7/6/2016. Based on the overall score, first in the ranking was Mr. Kontos, who was finally selected for appointment to the disputed position.
Did they have a legal interest?
The EAC's lawyer raised a preliminary issue before the Administrative Court, arguing that, since the applicants Asiikalis and Fragoulidis participated unreservedly and / or agreed to participate in an appointment process which they were aware of in advance, they lack the necessary legal such procedure and / or the wrong way of allocating units for each criterion. No preliminary hearing was held for Mr. Gavriilidis, as he had sent a letter in advance, informing that his participation in the proceedings was subject to his rights to challenge the specific proceedings in court.
The lawyers of Mr. Asikalis and Mr. Frangoulidis objected that the procedure in relation to the selection criteria was a mandatory procedure and was imposed on the candidates. He also argued that the applicants had a legitimate interest in bringing an action against the proceedings and, above all, in raising an issue of illegality in the way in which the parties were presented as having the same experience, in breach of the principle of equal treatment. According to the lawyer, the applicants should be credited with 16 points more than Mr. Kontos, something that would result in G. Asiikalis being first in the list of the advisory subcommittee and being selected for the position, while the applicant Frangoulidis second and should have been recommended by the subcommittee. He also claimed that S.Y. and the Board of Directors of the Authority were also erroneous in terms of seniority, which was neutralized. As pointed out, the parties belong to the same service and the criterion of seniority is an element of judgment. In this regard, they added, if Asiikalis Frangoulidis was taken into account and graded, they would receive several points for their seniority and would be ahead of Mr. Kontos even more.
According to the applicants, excessive importance was attached to the oral examination of the candidates, which eventually became, as mentioned, the decisive element for the selection of Mr. Kontos and essential selection criteria were neutralized.
Mr. Gavriilidis's side also argued that paragraph 2.1. (B) of the qualification selection process suffers, since it was drawn up in breach of the Service Plan, by adding, in addition to the advantage, qualifications which have been given increased weight. In addition, it was stated that the Service Plan of the disputed position leaves no room for comparison between postgraduates of different levels and that excessive emphasis was placed on the oral examination and the applicant's superiority in experience, qualifications and seniority was ignored.
The response of the EAC
From the EAC side, it was stated that the accepted promotion criteria have no place in the case under consideration, since this is not a promotion process, but a first appointment. In the selection process, it was added, the units that would be attributed to the relevant experience, in addition to the required and in addition to the advantage were predetermined and that the selection was based on purely objective criteria, strictly predetermined and published together with the announcement of the position in question. The return of 18 points in the total of 130 as the maximum for the relevant experience above, does not in any way ignore the criterion of experience, according to the lawyers of the EAC. In the same way, they added, neither the criterion of seniority was set as a criterion to which credits would be awarded and they rejected as unfounded the allegations of the applicants that the oral interview was given too much weight, which in any case, according to them, in high positions in the hierarchy. is an important element.
What the court said about the objection and the substance
The court rejected the EAC's pre-trial tension, ruling that its three executives who had appealed for the rejection of the appointment had a legitimate interest in doing so, even if they had participated in the proceedings, claiming the position. In the present case, the decision states, the applicants do not dispute the validity of the procedure followed and in which they unreservedly took part, but the weight given to the numerical criteria and in particular the determination of the parameters in terms of evaluation of experience and seniority, but and the severity of the oral examination.
Considering the applicants' argument that the advisory subcommittee and the Board of Directors of the Authority were erroneous in relation to the experience of the parties, as the applicants, who are superior to Mr Kontos in experience related to the duties of the position beyond the surplus, were credited with the same units as Mr. Kontos (18 units), while he was 8 years behind the applicants Asiikalis and Fragoulidis and 7 years behind the applicant Gavriilidis. According to the applicants, if the appropriate units were added to the applicants for their experience, this would affect their ranking in the final list.
The judge finally states in his judgment: “I consider that the parameters for the evaluation of experience have been incorrectly set and the court cannot know the formation of the correlations, if in relation to the element of experience, in which It is disputed by the defendants that the applicants had more than Mr. Kontos, any experience beyond 15 years was not neutralized (10 years of required experience and 5 years as an advantage). Consequently, the relevant ground for annulment of the applicants is accepted “.
