Performance report (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Performance report
Total judgments found: 187
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4902
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4901
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour l’année 2018.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[L]’évaluation des mérites d’un fonctionnaire au cours d’une période déterminée fait appel à un jugement de valeur, ce qui exige de sa part qu’il respecte le pouvoir d’appréciation des organes chargés de procéder à une telle évaluation. Il doit certes contrôler si les notes attribuées au fonctionnaire ont été à tous égards régulièrement établies, mais il ne peut se substituer à ces organes pour apprécier les qualités, les prestations et le comportement de l’intéressé. Aussi le Tribunal ne censurera-t-il un rapport d’évaluation que si celui-ci émane d’une autorité incompétente, a été établi en violation d’une règle de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte d’un fait essentiel, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou est entaché de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4795, au considérant 9, 4564, au considérant 3, 4267, au considérant 4, 3692, au considérant 8, 3228, au considérant 3, ou 3062, au considérant 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report; rating;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[L]a requérante fait valoir que l’échelle d’appréciation à quatre degrés ainsi mise en application ne permettrait pas d’évaluer les fonctionnaires avec autant de finesse que le barème de notation à huit niveaux utilisé dans le système d’évaluation antérieur […] la fixation de telles grilles d’évaluation procède de choix d’opportunité relevant du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’Organisation, dont – mise à part l’hypothèse extrême, qui ne se rencontre pas ici, où il aurait été fait un usage manifestement abusif de ce pouvoir – il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de connaître.
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; rating;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[L]a requérante voit une irrégularité dans le fait que ces objectifs lui aient été imposés par son évaluateur alors qu’elle avait exprimé des réserves à leur sujet […] Il est vrai que les directives du 20 décembre 2017 définissent le développement de la performance comme «le processus par lequel managers et agents s’accordent, dans un esprit de collaboration, sur la contribution individuelle que l’agent doit apporter pour permettre à l’OEB de remplir sa mission». Mais on ne saurait analyser cette indication, qui vise seulement à exposer l’esprit général du dispositif d’évaluation institué par ces directives, comme ayant entendu édicter une norme selon laquelle tout objectif individuel assigné à un fonctionnaire par son évaluateur devrait impérativement être arrêté d’un commun accord. Dans leur section III.1, relative à la «[f]ixation des objectifs», les directives en cause prévoient que «[l]a traduction des objectifs du domaine concerné en objectifs individuels [...] fait l’objet d’un entretien entre l’évaluateur [...] et l’agent». Même si les objectifs arrêtés à l’issue de cet entretien sont qualifiés dans la suite du texte – de façon quelque peu maladroite – d’«objectifs convenus», le Tribunal estime que ces dispositions doivent s’interpréter comme exigeant seulement que l’évaluateur consulte le fonctionnaire concerné sur la fixation des objectifs qu’il entend lui assigner, et non que ces derniers recueillent nécessairement l’assentiment du fonctionnaire.
Keywords:
consultation; interpretation of rules; performance report; rating;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Si la requérante se plaint […] qu’il n’ait pas été tenu compte, dans la fixation de ses objectifs de production, du temps qu’elle était amenée à consacrer à des entretiens avec le Département des ressources humaines concernant sa situation individuelle, le Tribunal estime que – sauf circonstances exceptionnelles, dont il n’est pas justifié en l’espèce – il n’y a effectivement pas lieu de prendre en considération un tel facteur pour la détermination des objectifs annuels d’un fonctionnaire.
Keywords:
performance report; rating;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[L]a requérante estime que les objectifs qui lui avaient été assignés auraient dû faire l’objet d’une réactualisation en cours d’année. Mais la section III.1 précitée des directives prévoit, à ce sujet, que les objectifs fixés «peuvent [...] être actualisés/revus dans le courant de l’année selon les besoins du service». Il s’agit donc là d’une simple faculté […].
Keywords:
interpretation of rules; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[L]’intéressée critique, en premier lieu, le fait que la Commission d’évaluation instituée, à compter du 1er janvier 2015, par l’article 110bis du Statut des fonctionnaires de l’Office ne comporte pas, à la différence de la Commission de recours interne – qui était jusqu’alors compétente en matière de contestation des rapports d’évaluation –, de représentant du personnel. Mais le Tribunal a déjà eu l’occasion de juger que cette caractéristique ne rendait pas inadéquate la composition du nouvel organe ainsi créé (voir les jugements 4795, au considérant 7, 4637, au considérant 11, et 4257, au considérant 13). Ce moyen sera donc écarté.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637, 4795
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
[S]elon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, le cadre réglementaire d’une procédure d’évaluation ne peut être modifié, du moins dans ses éléments substantiels, par une disposition adoptée après le début de la période d’évaluation concernée (voir notamment le jugement 4257, au considérant 10, explicitant la teneur du jugement 3185, au considérant 7). Cette solution, qui vaut bien entendu au premier chef pour la définition des critères au regard desquels est opérée l’évaluation, se justifie par la nécessité de respecter tant le principe de non-rétroactivité des actes administratifs que les exigences de bonne foi, de transparence et d’équité qui s’imposent en matière d’évaluation des fonctionnaires […] le Tribunal estime que les règles complémentaires ainsi prévues ne sauraient être regardées comme ayant modifié de manière substantielle la procédure d’évaluation définie par les directives, dès lors notamment que la connaissance préalable de ces règles n’eût été aucunement de nature, en tout état de cause, à influer sur le comportement professionnel des fonctionnaires concernés pendant la période d’évaluation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 4257
Keywords:
good faith; non-retroactivity; performance report; rating;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal estime que, pour regrettable qu’elle soit, la brièveté du délai imparti à la requérante pour saisir la Commission d’évaluation n’a pas été, en l’espèce, de nature à porter atteinte aux droits de l’intéressée à bénéficier d’un recours effectif et d’une procédure régulière (voir, s’agissant des exigences de la jurisprudence à cet égard, le jugement 4795, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4795
Keywords:
performance report; rating; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4896
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour l’année 2018.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4894
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance report; rating;
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
In its opinion of 1 December 2014, the Internal Appeals Committee firstly considered its role and secondly the merits of the complainant’s internal appeal. As to its role, it firstly noted, correctly, the limited role of the Tribunal in reviewing staff reports which are discretionary in nature. However, and importantly (a matter not understood by all internal appeals bodies), it said that an internal appeal body can “determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should have been made” citing Judgment 3161, consideration 6.
[…]
It is now convenient to consider the additional relief sought by the complainant. This includes that the text in his staff report for 2009 be amended by order of the Tribunal. But it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, this would be review of a report concerning the appraisal of the complainant some considerable time ago. There should be no such remittal though the complainant may gain some comfort from the conclusions of the Internal Appeals Committee (together with the observations of the Tribunal in this judgment), whose opinion should be included in his personnel file, if it is not already. It is also assumed that the present judgment will be included in his personnel file.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4893
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2008-2009.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
It is convenient to focus on the relief the complainant seeks. [...] His primary relief, as articulated in the rejoinder, is that the Tribunal “take a final decision on the merits”. The Tribunal takes this to include a reference to a claim made in the complaint form under the heading “[r]elief claimed”, that “the text [under] productivity in [the complainant’s] staff report [for] 2008-2009 should be amended by replacing the words [‘very good’] by [‘outstanding’], and the box marking should be amended correspondingly”. […]
However, it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, the complainant now eschews any desire to have the matter remitted. Accordingly, what remains is the impermissible request to the Tribunal to undertake the evaluation itself. This claim must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 3
Extract:
One of the arguments advanced by the EPO is that this complaint is irreceivable as it is moot particularly given that the complainant has long since ceased being a member of its staff. It might also be thought that, when he ceased being a member of staff, he no longer had a cause of action. There is, in the Tribunal’s case law, some support for the view that a former staff member, who has retired since a contested staff report was drawn up, has “a moral interest in challenging a report appraising her or his performance” and has a cause of action which endures beyond retirement (see Judgment 4637, consideration 7).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4892
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2008-2009 and the decision not to initiate a harassment procedure against her reporting officer.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The second subheading referred to earlier is that “[t]he contested [staff report] is unjustified”. This is tantamount to an invitation to the Tribunal to enter the issue of whether a particular assessment in a performance appraisal report is appropriate. However, it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. But that is done only if a legal flaw is demonstrated. It is not in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The third subheading referred to earlier is that “[s]landerous/libellous comments have been disseminated about me”. This is a contention concerning the conduct of Mr T.E. The only relevance of this plea in relation to the staff report would be if the complainant was able to establish that Mr T.E. had been actuated by bias or ill will towards her which infected his assessment of her performance. In the main, the evidence relied upon by the complainant concerns matters of detail including comments to which she takes exception or comments that she views as contradictory, but nonetheless views as proof of bias or ill will. None of the evidence, either in isolation or in aggregate, demonstrates bias or ill will on the part of Mr T.E. in the preparation of the report, which was also the considered conclusion of the Appeals Committee’s majority. While the Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty in proving bias or ill will (see, for example, Judgments 2318, consideration 4, and 2259, consideration 13), nonetheless the burden of doing so falls on the complainant (see Judgments 4745, consideration 12, and 4010, consideration 9). In these proceedings, she has failed to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2259, 2318, 4010, 4745
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Before considering the complainant’s arguments, the Tribunal finds it convenient to recall the following statement that it made in Judgment 4795, consideration 9, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals:
“[...] As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of an employee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).”
In other words, given that the staff report calls for a value judgement and the exercise of a discretionary power by the responsible bodies of the Organisation, the complainant must convince the Tribunal that the EPO breached a procedural requirement, that the staff report was made without authority or by an incompetent authority, or resulted from an abuse of authority, that a manifest error of law or fact was made, or that clearly wrong conclusions were reached from the record or from the overlook of material facts (see also Judgments 4731, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4713, 4731, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]n Judgment 4564, consideration 6, the Tribunal observed that a staff report “is an entirely separate document from previous staff reports [and that] a staff member cannot reasonably expect that favourable ratings that may previously have been awarded to her or him will automatically be maintained” (see also Judgment 1688, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 4564
Keywords:
performance report; rating;
Judgment 4890
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Considerations 6 and 9
Extract:
The Tribunal has a limited power of review in situations involving performance appraisals of staff members. It is not the role of the Tribunal to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation in the assessment of the merits of a staff member. The Tribunal must rather recognize the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such assessment which involves a value judgement. In Judgment 4795, consideration 9, the Tribunal indeed recalled the following regarding its limited power of review in matters of staff appraisal:
“[...] As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of an employee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).”
(See also, to the same effect, Judgments 4731, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11.)
Moreover, in Judgment 4794, consideration 12, the Tribunal said the following in a situation where, like here, the complainant was asking that the assessment of his productivity be reviewed:
“Furthermore, aside from the fact that the Organisation has responded to the complainant’s criticisms factually, precisely and clearly in its submissions, the exercise that the complainant is asking the Tribunal to undertake with regard to the assessment of his productivity and his overall evaluation amounts in reality to a re-evaluation of his performance for 2016. However, that is a misconstruction of the Tribunal’s role, given the limited power of review the Tribunal may exercise in this matter according to its settled case law (see, for example, the aforementioned Judgment 4564, consideration 3, which was cited in the aforementioned Judgment 4637, consideration 13).”
[…] Reporting officers are not bound by ratings of previous staff reports and they must in all situations fairly and objectively assess the staff member’s productivity analysing each reporting period separately (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 6, and 1688, consideration 6). […]
[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to substitute its own assessment to the value judgement made by the competent bodies of the Organisation in their rating of the work productivity of the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4637, 4794, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.
Keywords:
breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal disagrees with IOM’s assertion that the complaint is allegedly irreceivable (for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as the underlying appeal was not filed within the applicable deadline), insofar as it concerns the decisions, communicated to the complainant on 13 June 2019, to establish the PIP (including any alleged violation of the SES process) and to extend the complainant’s contract for a three-month period corresponding to the PIP’s duration. The Tribunal considers that a staff member may challenge the decision to subject her to a PIP in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the PIP process. In Judgment 3713, consideration 3, the Tribunal recalled that:
“[I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13).” (See also Judgment 3890, consideration 5.)
In the present case, the decision taken at the end of the PIP process was a decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract due to underperformance and this decision resulted in the complainant being separated from IOM. This being so, the Tribunal considers that the above cited case law from Judgments 3713, consideration 3, and 3890, consideration 5, is equally applicable in a case such as the present. And given that the complainant impugns her final contract extension and ultimate non-renewal, it is of no relevance whether the issue of her prior three-month extension is receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198, 3713, 3890
Keywords:
final decision; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; step in the procedure; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 20
Extract:
[A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.
Keywords:
breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Considerations 23-24
Extract:
[T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
“As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’”
Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has already ruled, in relation to the objection procedure applicable to appraisals of other permanent employees of the Office, which shares these same features mutatis mutandis, that the fact that no staff representatives were included on the Appraisals Committee competent to review the appraisal reports of those other employees did not mean that the Committee’s composition was inadequate, and the fact that the Committee’s mandate was confined to determining whether such reports were arbitrary or discriminatory was legally admissible (see Judgments 4637, considerations 11 and 13, and 4257, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of anemployee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).
Among the various pleas entered by the complainant [...], there is one that is decisive for the outcome of this dispute, [...] since it relates to a material fact that was allegedly overlooked. This is the plea that the President of the Boards of Appeal refused to take account of the fact that the 50 per cent exemption from duties granted to the complainant as a full member of the CSC, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Circular No. 356 concerning the resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee, was insufficient in the light of actual needs observed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t must be noted from the outset that, although the complainant asks for the Communiqué to be set aside, the claim he presents to that end is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the Communiqué at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Under that same case law, the complainant may, however, challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned Communiqué 2/17 – as indeed he has done – in support of his claims for the impugned decision and the disputed performance evaluation report, which implement the guidelines contained in the Communiqué, to be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision; performance report;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant submits that the time limits prescribed by [...] Communiqué [2/17] for submitting comments on the opinion issued by the chairman of the Board and for lodging an objection to the performance evaluation report are unreasonably short, that is ten days in each case, the Tribunal considers that, while the periods are indeed brief, they are not so to a degree that would breach the principles of the right to effective appeal and the right to due process.
Keywords:
performance report; rating; right of appeal; time limit;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]his evaluation contained some disparaging comments about the complainant, [...] which were liable to harm his professional reputation and clearly offended him. Those comments therefore caused him moral injury.
Keywords:
moral injury; performance report;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant asks that he be awarded the “average rating of ‘fulfils the requirements’” [...].
It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative bodies responsible for staff appraisals within an international organisation, to determine the rating to be given to an employee in a performance evaluation report (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 2, and 4258, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4258, 4564
Keywords:
performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4794
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4793
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 5
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4792
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 3 & 11
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
[…]
Regarding the third plea, the complainant’s argument to the effect that his 2016 performance assessment was not thoroughly done and was “extremely thin” implicitly invites the Tribunal into the realm of technical considerations regarding appraisal assessments that are not within its purview […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4791
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Considerations 4 & 8
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare her 2016 appraisal report null and void, and […] to declare the whole appraisal procedure null and void, including the appraisal report, are noted. The Tribunal simply observes that it may, if appropriate, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4790
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Considerations 2 & 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to order that his 2016 appraisal report be amended so that he receives an overall performance rating of “above the level required for the function” instead of “corresponding to the level required for the function” is rejected as irreceivable as it is not within the Tribunal’s power to change the overall assessment rating in an appraisal report (see, for example, Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 13).
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4789
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4788
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 4 & 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request for the orders stated in items (4), (5) and (7) are rejected as, in the main, they involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal recalls its case law, stated, for example, in consideration 13 of Judgment 4637, referring to Judgment 4257, that its power to review appraisal reports is limited to considering, among other things, whether there was illegality in drawing up the contested report. It is not within the Tribunal’s power to change the overall assessment rating or to upgrade the evaluation of the functional and core competencies in an appraisal report (see also Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7). The Tribunal may, if necessary, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4564, 4718, 4719, 4720
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4787
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 1, 5, 7 & 8
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects the complainant’s request for an order that the EPO issues a “flawless” appraisal report for 2016 so that she receives an overall performance rating of “above the level required for the function” rather than “corresponding to the level required for the function”. In the main, such request involves an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal may, if appropriate, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
[…]
The Committee [...] stated the well-established principle that appraisal reports are discretionary decisions that are subject to only limited review […]
[…]
[I]t is not within the Tribunal’s power to change the overall assessment rating in an appraisal report (see, for example, Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4786
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 1 & 4
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects the complainant’s request for an order that the EPO issues a new “flawless” appraisal report for 2016. In the main, such request involves an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal may, if appropriate, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
The Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
