Jugement n° 4986
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 et 6
Extrait:
[T]hese requests 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, 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.)
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786, 4788
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, Judgment 4637, consideration 17). […]
As regards the complainant’s allegation regarding the alleged unsubstantiated, discriminatory, and arbitrary setting of his functional and core competencies, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the burden of proving such allegations – which, in reality, amounts to accusing his reporting and countersigning officers of bias – rests with the complainant, and mere suspicion is clearly insufficient (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 17, and 4010, consideration 9). In this case, the complainant has failed to provide any credible evidence showing that his functional and core competencies were evaluated on discriminatory or arbitrary grounds. His arguments regarding competency settings appear to be a disagreement with the weight given to certain incidents, rather than evidence of unfair treatment.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4637
Mots-clés
Charge de la preuve; Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Partialité
|
