Jugement n° 4983
Décision
The complaint is dismissed.
Synthèse
The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés
Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Requête rejetée
Considérants 3, 6 et 10
Extrait:
The Tribunal recalls its case law, stated, for example, in consideration 13 of Judgment 4637, referring to Judgments 4564 and 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 its power to change the overall assessment rating or to upgrade the evaluation of the competencies in an appraisal report (see, for example, Judgments 4788, consideration 4, 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, and 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.
[…]
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:
“2. [...] 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. [...]
3. [...] [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.”
(See also Judgment 4786, consideration 4.)
[…]
The complainant’s assumption that his past performance should be considered is unmeritorious. There is no authority that permits the complainant’s 2017 appraisal report to take into consideration his previous reports. The Tribunal observes that an appraisal 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 appraisal reports (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 6, and 1688, consideration 6).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786
Mots-clés
Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Rôle du Tribunal
Considérant 7
Extrait:
The complainant has not discharged his burden of proof in demonstrating that the reporting and the countersigning officers acted partially or lacked objectivity (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 17, 4543, consideration 8, 4382, consideration 11, and 3380, consideration 9). Contrary to his assertions, the overall marking he received means that his performance was evaluated as acceptable, with some areas of improvement. This rating was substantiated by the reporting and the countersigning officers based on the fact that the complainant did not completely achieve the planned productivity objectives. Furthermore, the complainant’s allegations of a hostile working environment and “constructive dismissal tactics” are unsubstantiated and thus unfounded.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4382, 4543, 4637
Mots-clés
Charge de la preuve; Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Partialité
Considérant 9
Extrait:
According to the well-established case law of the Tribunal, the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 4277, consideration 21, and 4274, consideration 21). The complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that discrimination has occurred in the setting of his objectives.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4274, 4277
Mots-clés
Egalité de traitement
|
