Judgment No. 4984
Decision
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. The complainant shall pay the EPO costs in the amount of 1,000 euros within sixty days of the date of the public delivery of this judgment.
Summary
The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Consideration 2
Extract:
The EPO submits that, inasmuch as the complainant retired on 1 December 2018 and is no longer an active employee of the EPO, he no longer has a cause of action to challenge the contested appraisal report and the main claim by which he seeks to obtain a new appraisal report for the 2017 period has lost its practical relevance and thus has become moot. The EPO insists that, assuming that the complainant would be awarded a more favourable overall performance marking than the one he received, it would have no impact on his career advancement. This submission is unfounded by reference to the Tribunal’s statement 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 had retired since the report was drawn up did not, in itself, deprive her or him of a cause of action. The EPO’s objection to receivability must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637
Keywords
cause of action; performance report; rating; former official
Consideration 8
Extract:
As the complainant failed to raise an objection with the Committee to contest his 2017 appraisal report, as this provision, as well as Section B(12) of Circular No. 366, Articles 110a(5) and 113(2) of the Service Regulations required, this complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Keywords
failure to exhaust internal remedies
Consideration 9
Extract:
The EPO seeks an order for costs against the complainant on the basis that his complaint was frivolous (see Judgments 4722, consideration 6, 4717, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). It was, and for the reasons the EPO gave. In proceedings where costs are ordered to be paid by one party, usually the defendant organisation, to another party, usually a successful complainant, the amount of costs will usually depend on the nature of the legal representation of the successful party. If the successful party was represented by external lawyers, they are usually paid 10,000 euros or an equivalent amount. In point of principle, once liability to pay costs is established, the amount should be the same. In this case, the EPO was represented by external lawyers. However, the EPO explicitly limits its claim for costs to 1,000 euros. Accordingly, costs of that amount should be ordered. The complainant, a frivolous litigant in these proceedings, should be ordered to pay the EPO 1,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4717, 4722
Keywords
counterclaim
|
