Judgment No. 4977
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her staff report for 2012-2013.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls its consistent case law according to which the power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals is a limited one. 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. The 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. The Tribunal 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, Judgment 4564, consideration 3). The Tribunal has also stated that this limitation on its power of review in such cases naturally applies to both the rating given in a staff report and the comments accompanying the rating (see, for example, Judgments 4720, consideration 11, 4564, consideration 3, 3945, consideration 7, and 3228, consideration 3). The Tribunal has stated as well, in consideration 6 of Judgment 1136, that, within the scope of the reporting officer’s wide discretion, it is to be presumed that the assessment of a staff member’s performance is made in good faith and in the interest of both the staff and the organisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1136, 3228, 3945, 4564, 4720
Keywords
performance report; rating; judicial review; performance evaluation; role of the tribunal
Consideration 4
Extract:
The EPO submits that, inasmuch as the complainant retired on 1 August 2018 and is no longer an active employee of the Organisation, she no longer has a cause of action to challenge her staff report. The main claim by which she seeks to obtain a new staff report for 2012-2013 has lost its practical relevance and thus has become moot. The EPO insists that, assuming that the complainant would be awarded more favourable markings than the one she received, it would have no impact on her career advancement. This submission is unfounded by reference to the statement the Tribunal made in consideration 7 of Judgment 4637. Therein, the Tribunal rejected a similar submission stating that a staff member who had retired from the service of the EPO had, at the very least, “a moral interest in challenging a report appraising her or his performance” and that the fact that the complainant has retired since the report was drawn up does not, in itself, deprive her or him of a cause of action. Whether this concept of “moral interest” accords with the Tribunal’s Statute is a matter that need not be explored in these proceedings (see Judgment 4893, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4893
Keywords
cause of action; performance report; rating; former official
|
