|
|
 |
|
|
Rating (288,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Rating
Total judgments found: 63
1, 2, 3, 4 | 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”.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Given the limited scope of the power of review of the Tribunal on performance appraisals as constantly indicated in the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, considerations 2 and 3, and the case law cited therein), the fact that the complainant’s view of his performance is different than that of his supervisor is clearly not sufficient to set aside this evaluation and order that another one be undertaken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
Keywords:
performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
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;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has long recognized the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals. In this regard, in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, the Tribunal stated the following:
“2. [T]he Tribunal observes that, in requesting that the Tribunal should itself determine the new ratings to be awarded under the various headings of the staff report concerned, the complainant plainly misunderstands the nature of the review with which the Tribunal is tasked. 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. Consequently, as it is framed, the request for the staff report concerned to be amended can only be dismissed (see, to that effect, Judgment 4258, considerations 2 and 3, and the case law cited therein).
The Tribunal may only set aside that staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit to the [organization concerned] the task of reviewing the assessment concerned in light of the grounds of its judgment, if it considers it necessary to make such an order within the limits of the restricted power of review which the Tribunal may exercise in this area, the scope of which will be reiterated below.
3. As the Tribunal has repeatedly held, assessment 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. [...]”
(See also Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
Keywords:
performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[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 appraisal 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 4795, consideration 9, 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, or 3062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report; rating;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that the four-point assessment scale thus applied does not allow staff members to be assessed as accurately as the eight-point rating scale used in the former assessment system.
[T]he establishment of such assessment scales is a policy choice falling within the Organisation’s discretion with which – apart from in the extreme case of a clear abuse of that power, which does not arise here – it is not for the Tribunal to concern itself.
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; rating;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant perceives a breach in the fact that those goals were imposed on her by her reporting officer although she had expressed reservations in their regard [...] It is true that the Guidelines of 20 December 2017 define performance development as “the process by which managers and staff collaboratively agree upon the contribution to be made by individual staff members to enable the EPO to fulfil its mission”. But this statement, which merely aims to explain the general principle underlying the assessment system introduced by the Guidelines, cannot be construed as having intended to lay down a rule according to which any individual goal assigned to a staff member by her or his reporting officer must mandatorily be adopted by mutual agreement.
In Section III.1 concerning “[g]oal setting”, the Guidelines provide that “[t]he translation of business area goals into individual goals [...] is discussed by the reporting officer [...] and the staff member at a meeting”. Even if the text goes on to refer – somewhat awkwardly – to the goals set following that meeting as “the agreed goals”, the Tribunal considers that these provisions must be construed as only requiring that the reporting officer consult the staff member concerned on the goals that the reporting officer intends to assign to her or him, and not that those goals must receive the staff member’s assent.
Keywords:
consultation; interpretation of rules; performance report; rating;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although the complainant alleges [...] that no account was taken when setting her production goals of the time she had to spend on meetings with the human resources department regarding her personal situation, the Tribunal finds that – except in exceptional circumstances, which are not demonstrated in this case – that factor does not need to be taken into consideration when setting a staff member’s annual goals.
Keywords:
performance report; rating;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that the goals assigned to her should have been updated during the year. However, aforementioned Section III.1 of the Guidelines provides in this connection that the goals set “may [...] be reviewed in the course of the year, depending on business requirements”. This is therefore merely an option [...].
Keywords:
interpretation of rules; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In this regard, in the first place, the complainant takes issue with the fact that the Appraisals Committee, established from 1 January 2015 by Article 110a of the Service Regulations, does not include a staff representative, unlike the Internal Appeals Committee which had until then been responsible for dealing with challenges to appraisal reports. However, the Tribunal has already held that this characteristic does not mean that the composition of the new body is inadequate (see Judgments 4795, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 11, and 4257, consideration 13). This plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637, 4795
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, the regulatory framework of an appraisal procedure, or in any event the substantive elements thereof, may not be amended by a provision adopted after the beginning of the reporting period concerned (see in particular Judgment 4257, consideration 10, explaining the content of Judgment 3185, consideration 7). That approach, which of course applies first and foremost to the setting of the criteria on the basis of which the assessment is performed, is justified by the need to observe both the principle of the non-retroactivity of administrative acts and the requirements of good faith, transparency and fairness that are incumbent in the matter of staff appraisals. [...]
[T]he Tribunal considers that these additional rules cannot be regarded as having substantially altered the assessment procedure set out in the Guidelines, especially since prior knowledge of these rules would not in any event have influenced the professional conduct of the staff members concerned during the reporting period.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 4257
Keywords:
good faith; non-retroactivity; performance report; rating;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that, however regrettable, the short time limit granted to the complainant to refer the matter to the Appraisals Committee was not, in this case, such as to breach her rights to an effective appeal or due process (see, as regards the requirements of the case law on this point, Judgment 4795, consideration 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: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 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 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 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 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues, in the first place, that the procedure leading to the adoption of Communiqué 2/17 was flawed because it was not submitted to the General Consultative Committee (GCC) [for consultation].
[...]
Article 1(4) of the Service Regulations provides that the regulations are to apply to members of the Boards of Appeal “in so far as they are not prejudicial to their independence”. The appraisal of members of those Boards is one of the particular problems associated with the guarantees of independence from which those members benefit. In addition, relating more generally to measures that specifically deal with the conditions of employment of members of the Boards of Appeal, it is apparent from the file [...] that, in view of this requirement for independence, it was increasingly seen as inappropriate for such measures to be subject to consultation with the GCC, especially given that that body is chaired by the President of the Office and half of its members are appointed by him. As a consequence, it became the practice, for measures of this type, to replace consultation with the GCC by consultation with the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, an autonomous authority provided for in Rule 12b of the Implementing Regulations to the Convention, whose role, under paragraph 3 of that rule, includes “advis[ing] the President of the Boards of Appeal on matters concerning the functioning of the Boards of Appeal Unit in general” [...]. This practice was eventually codified in 2019 by the insertion of paragraph 8 into Article 38 of the Service Regulations, which expressly provides for consultation with the Presidium in such a situation rather than with the GCC.
This is the procedure that was followed for the drafting of Communiqué 2/17. Admittedly, the new version of Article 38 was not in force at that time. However, as just explained, even before the amendment was made to the Service Regulations, a practice existed to that effect and, contrary to what the complainant maintains, was already in use at the time when the Communiqué was issued, as evidenced by examples supplied by the EPO of previous consultations on other matters. Furthermore, although it is well-established case law that a practice cannot become legally binding where it contravenes rules already in force (see, for example, Judgments 4555, consideration 11, and 4026, consideration 6), the Tribunal considers that, in view of the aforementioned wording of Article 1(4) of the Service Regulations, the practice in question cannot be regarded as contravening the applicable rules. The lack of consultation with the GCC did not, therefore, constitute an irregularity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4026, 4555
Keywords:
consultation; independence; interpretation of rules; practice; rating;
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;
Consideration 9
Extract:
As for the complainant’s contention that the objection procedure before the Appraisals Committee set out in Circular No. 366 does not offer the same safeguards as the internal appeal procedure before the Appeals Committee, the complainant has not put forward any arguments showing the objection procedure to be flawed. The Tribunal recalls that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, [...] Judgment 4637, consideration 12, and Judgments 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 4408, 4637
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; rating; right to be heard;
Considerations 10 & 12
Extract:
[T]he fact that the Appraisals Committee’s mandate is confined to determining whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not in itself render the procedure flawed, as the Tribunal also noted in the aforementioned Judgments 4637, consideration 13, and 4257, consideration 13. In addition, the Appraisals Committee’s restricted mandate in this regard does not limit the extent of the Tribunal’s judicial role in this area. It must be recalled that the Tribunal can exercise only a limited power of review in the matter of staff appraisals. In Judgment 4564, consideration 3, the Tribunal reiterated the following in this regard:
“[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 rating of EPO employees, those criteria are the more stringent because the Office has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a [...] body [...]”
Since the Tribunal does not have the ability to substitute its own assessment for that made by the persons or bodies responsible for assessing an employee’s merits, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.
[...]
[T]he 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637
Keywords:
discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;
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;
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;
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
As for the complainant’s claim for the revision of some of the comments in the final staff report, the Tribunal notes firstly that it is difficult to understand how the complainant could have been adversely affected by those comments as such, given that she does not, in any case, dispute the “good” ratings ultimately awarded to her under those headings. Above all, however, in requesting the Tribunal to review and rewrite some of the comments that appear under two of the headings in her staff report, the complainant plainly misunderstands the nature of the review with which the Tribunal is tasked. 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 (see Judgment 4564, consideration 2). In the matter of staff appraisal, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review (see, for example, Judgment 4637, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein), which does not involve reassessment of performance (see also Judgments 4258, consideration 2, and 4257, consideration 3). It is clear from consideration 3 of Judgment 4564 that:
“The Tribunal will [...] 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 rating of EPO employees, those criteria are the more stringent because the Office has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a joint body whose members are directly familiar with the workings of the Office (see, for example, Judgments 1688, consideration 5, 3062, consideration 3, 3228, consideration 3, 3268, consideration 9, 3692, consideration 8, and 4258, consideration 2).”
The Tribunal has already indicated that a request for a staff report to be amended which does not meet these criteria can only be dismissed (see, to that effect, Judgments 4564, consideration 2, and 4258, considerations 2 and 3). The same applies to a request for amendment which does not concern the final rating given in the disputed staff report but relates to the wording of the observations and/or comments which formed the basis for that rating, especially where the rating is not challenged by the employee in question. In Judgment 3692, consideration 8, the Tribunal also stated that the limitation on its power of review “naturally applies to both the rating given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that rating”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4257, 4258, 4564, 4637
Keywords:
rating; role of the tribunal;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
