Performance report (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Performance report
Total judgments found: 187
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4731
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for the period 2008-2009.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4726
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4725
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4724
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4723
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4721
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4720
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4719
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4718
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4717
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4716
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4715
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4714
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4713
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4638
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he exercise which the complainant invites the Tribunal to carry out with regard to his productivity targets, overall rating, certain allegedly wrong or incorrect figures and, in his view, inappropriate applications of the new method for processing patent applications known as “BEST” (Bringing Examination and Search Together) and the PAX calculation rules is essentially a fresh appraisal of his performance for 2015. However, that misconstrues the Tribunal’s role in this area in view of its limited power of review under its settled case law (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, and 3252, consideration 6, also cited in [...] Judgment 4637, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 4564, 4637
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4637
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 7
Extract:
With regard to all the complainant’s other claims, the EPO submits that the complaint is irreceivable since the complainant no longer has a cause of action. According to it, while the complainant had, to a limited extent, a cause of action to challenge his 2014 staff report at the time when he filed his complaint, that cause of action lapsed when he retired on the last day of the month in which he reached the age of 65 years, as provided for in Article 54(1)(a) of the Service Regulations. In the EPO’s view, since the complainant is retired and has stopped work permanently, with no chance of being reinstated or resuming his career, he is no longer eligible for any career progression, whether this be through step advancements, bonuses or promotions as provided for in Chapter 2 of Title III of the Service Regulations, which deals with professional development. The EPO therefore considers that he has no cause of action to request that the report in question be set aside.
However, the Tribunal observes that a staff member has, at the very least, a moral interest in challenging a report appraising her or his performance. Thus, contrary to the EPO’s submissions, the fact that the complainant has retired since the report was drawn up does not, in itself, deprive him of a cause of action. The EPO’s objection to receivability must therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4564
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for the 2008-2009 exercise.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] observes that a staff report, the purpose of which is to assess an employee’s merits over a given period and which is drawn up according to the rules governing the evaluation exercise for the period in question, is an entirely separate document from previous staff reports. Consequently, a staff member cannot reasonably expect that favourable ratings that may previously have been awarded to her or him will automatically be maintained (see, for example, [...] Judgment 1688, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688
Keywords:
performance report; rating;
Judgment 4450
133rd Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of her probationary period for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant contends that the objectives were fully achieved, but this is her personal opinion and it cannot substitute the one expressed by her supervisors, who are expressly qualified to make such assessments. Nor shall the Tribunal substitute its own opinion to a discretionary decision, unless it reveals flaws in fact or law that in the present case are not demonstrated.
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4234
129th Session, 2020
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As to the errors and omissions in the management of staff files which were referred to in the performance appraisal reports, these were professional shortcomings. Such shortcomings cannot be equated with misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, 1208, consideration 2, and 3853, consideration 6). Misconduct involves a breach of the duties of an international civil servant in respect of conduct which may trigger disciplinary proceedings and lead to a disciplinary measure. That is not the case for professional shortcomings, which may give rise to various administrative measures, such as a reminder of the applicable rules, a note in a personal file, an unfavourable appraisal or even the non-renewal or termination of a contract (see, for example, Judgment 1405, consideration 4).
The professional shortcomings mentioned in the performance appraisal reports – the last of which led to a 95 per cent downwards adjustment in the complainant’s annual merit bonus – could not give rise to a disciplinary measure.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1405, 3853
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report;
Judgment 4229
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the World Food Programme, challenges the decision to maintain the decision not to renew his contract, and to award him material and moral damages instead of reinstatement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In the Tribunal’s view, it was mistaken for the impugned decision to rely on the fact that the complainant’s 2011 and 2012 PACE appraisal reports gave him an “unsatisfactory” overall rating, and were not revised to satisfactory, as well as concerns that were stated in the complainant’s probationary appraisal (which actually gave a satisfactory rating), as bases for finding that his reinstatement was not warranted. Accordingly, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it denied reinstatement. However, inasmuch as the complainant held a fixed-term appointment that expired on 3 June 2013 rather than a continuing appointment, and given the time that has passed, the Tribunal considers that it is not appropriate to order his reinstatement (see, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; reinstatement;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned decision, the Tribunal considers that the award of 70,000 euros, which the Organization paid to the complainant for the lost opportunity to be considered for renewal, was reasonable. Accordingly, it will be unnecessary to award him any further sum in this regard. Although in the impugned decision the Director-General purported to “set aside” the decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the fact remains that the complainant was separated from service without a valid reason and was not reinstated. It is perhaps this, above all, that justifies the significant amount of damages awarded to him by the Director-General. There is no other basis for awarding further damages for the invalid 2012 PACE appraisal report and the unlawful decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment.
Keywords:
fixed-term; formal flaw; loss of opportunity; material damages; non-renewal of contract; performance report; procedural flaw;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
