|
|
 |
|
|
Rating (288,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Rating
Total judgments found: 81
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 5176
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Considerations 4 and 8
Extract:
“[The] assessment [of an employee’s performance during a specified period] involves a value judgement and, for this reason, the Tribunal must recognize 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 an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4795, consideration 9, 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).
[…] As already stated in Judgment 4795, consideration 14, it is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative bodies responsible for staff appraisals within an international organization, to determine the rating to be given to an employee in a PER.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance evaluation; rating;
Judgment 5058
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour harcèlement à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
[L]a jurisprudence ordinaire du Tribunal, qui admet que puissent être parallèlement poursuivies des procédures visant, d’une part, à la contestation d’une évaluation et, d’autre part, à celle du classement d’une plainte pour harcèlement fondée, en tout ou en partie, sur cette même évaluation (voir, pour un exemple de situation de ce type, les jugements 4900, 4901 et 4902). Cette jurisprudence vaut d’ailleurs, plus généralement, pour toute décision administrative dont il est argué qu’elle relèverait d’un harcèlement (voir notamment, pour le cas d’une décision de suppression de poste, les jugements 3688 et 3192).
La solution qui se dégage ainsi du texte applicable et de la jurisprudence s’impose, en termes de logique juridique, car l’introduction d’un recours contre une évaluation et le dépôt d’une plainte pour harcèlement à raison de faits se rapportant à cette évaluation n’ont ni le même objet ni, en cas de succès, les mêmes effets. En particulier, l’éventuelle reconnaissance du bien-fondé d’une plainte pour harcèlement peut ouvrir droit au bénéfice de mesures de réparation ou de protection spécifiques que la contestation de l’évaluation elle-même ne permet pas d’obtenir. Il importe au demeurant de souligner que, dans l’hypothèse ci-dessus évoquée de coexistence entre des requêtes relatives, respectivement, au classement d’une plainte et à une évaluation, si le Tribunal admet, dans le cadre de l’affaire concernant l’évaluation, que l’argument tiré de l’existence alléguée d’un harcèlement puisse être utilement soulevé, il n’examine alors cet argument qu’«uniquement dans la mesure où [celui-ci] est strictement lié à la légalité de la décision spécifique contestée [dans cette affaire]» (voir les jugements 4902, au considérant 3, ou 4901, au considérant 3). La possibilité de contester une évaluation ne saurait donc être considérée comme un substitut à celle de former une plainte.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3192, 3688, 4900, 4901, 4902
Keywords:
harassment; internal remedies exhausted; rating;
Judgment 5057
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour représailles à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; rating; retaliation;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Si l’évaluation des performances et la dénonciation de prétendues représailles relèvent certes de procédures différentes, il n’en demeure pas moins que des représailles à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire sont susceptibles de prendre la forme d’une notation défavorable et rien ne fait obstacle, en principe, à ce qu’un requérant invoque le contenu d’un de ses rapports d’évaluation à l’appui d’une plainte. En outre, s’il existe évidemment, en l’espèce, des liens étroits entre la contestation de l’évaluation litigieuse […] et celle du rejet de la plainte pour représailles en cause dans la présente instance, ces litiges soulèvent toutefois des questions distinctes.
Keywords:
rating; retaliation;
Judgment 5034
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019, ainsi que les décisions subséquentes de «geler» son avancement d’échelon et de la soumettre à un plan d’amélioration des performances, de même que le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal rappelle qu’il ressort de sa jurisprudence constante à ce sujet que l’utilité des rapports d’évaluation annuels subsiste, même lorsque les délais pour les établir n’ont pas été respectés, avec cette conséquence que ces rapports ne sauraient donc être déclarés nuls de ce seul fait, mais que, suivant les cas, l’influence du retard sur le contenu du rapport devra être prise en compte (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4962, au considérant 9, 3039, au considérant 9, et 2064, au considérant 5). En l’occurrence, le Tribunal estime, en tout état de cause, que le retard survenu dans la finalisation du rapport d’évaluation des performances de la requérante pour 2019 est excusable au regard des circonstances de l’espèce et, notamment, des différentes périodes d’absence pour maladie de l’intéressée.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2064, 3039, 4962
Keywords:
performance evaluation; rating; time limit; work appraisal;
Judgment 5009
140th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “Effective performance” rating contained in her appraisal report covering the period from June 2017 to May 2018, as well as a comment made in such report about her having been on extended leave and having worked part-time during the appraisal period.
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
The complainant’s legal argument in her brief is advanced under one heading only, namely: '[t]he performance appraisal document created a distorted picture and undermined the work of the [c]omplainant, which constitutes bullying and harassment'. Much of the argumentation is directed to establishing what, as she alleges, was a 'hostile and abusive [work] environment' and, additionally what in the complainant’s view was the appropriate evaluation, namely 'Outstanding performance'. The latter invites the Tribunal to undertake a role it eschews […] and the former is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the appraisal, at least at the high level of generality argued by the complainant […] The complainant’s rejoinder also does not raise any argument of substance concerning the lawfulness of the appraisal and again mainly focuses on a generalized complaint about the environment in which the complainant had worked. […] No case is made out that the appraisal was unlawful. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed.
Keywords:
harassment; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4986
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
[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.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786, 4788
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 7
Extract:
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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4637
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4985
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Considerations 1 and 4
Extract:
The complainant’s request to order that the EPO issues a new appraisal report for 2017 in which his inability to perform his duties (due to his medical condition) be taken into account and the productivity results be assessed on that basis is rejected as the Tribunal does not issue orders of this kind. The Tribunal however 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.
[…]
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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4984
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
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; former official; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4983
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 7
Extract:
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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4382, 4543, 4637
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
Considerations 3, 6 and 10
Extract:
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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4982
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Considerations 3 and 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request […] to order that his 2017 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” must be rejected as the Tribunal is not competent to issue orders of this kind. In the main, this request involves 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 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.
[…]
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:
“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.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786, 4788
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4981
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2017.
Consideration 2
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 appraisal report. The main claim by which she seeks to obtain a new report for 2017 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 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 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; former official; performance report; rating;
Consideration 7
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision and her 2017 appraisal report, 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:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4980
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2012-2013.
Considerations 3, 6 and 9
Extract:
In light of the Tribunal’s limited scope of review, it is not within its power of review to order the amendment of the contested staff report so that the complainant receives a marking of “very good” under productivity, attitude to work and dealings with others and for his overall performance. The Tribunal may however, if appropriate, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
In its analysis of the submissions the complainant proffered to challenge the merits of the assessment and his request for the amendment of the markings he received for productivity and attitude to work and dealings with others, as well as for the overall performance to “very good”, the Appeals Committee correctly appreciated that, pursuant to the case law, its scope of review of a performance evaluation was wider than that of the Tribunal. It cited the statements in consideration 5 of Judgment 3318 and consideration 6 of Judgment 3161, that its power of review in effect extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to it, except to the extent that the internal rules which governs the Committee provide otherwise, its role being to determine whether the decision appealed is correct on the facts or whether some other decision should be made. The Committee also noted the Tribunal’s statement 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.
[…]
The Appeals Committee had also noted and correctly rejected the complainant’s argument which suggested, in effect, that the reporting officer erred by not considering the markings and overall performance ratings he had been awarded in previous performance evaluations. The Committee stated, correctly, that such reference was irrelevant to the subject assessment because, as a matter of principle, to be fair, every staff report has to be consistent in itself and cannot be compared with previous staff reports and must be based solely upon a staff member’s performance in each reporting period. The Committee also correctly rejected the other arguments the complainant proffered to support his request for the amendment of the subject markings and overall performance rating, which are based on his subjective opinions. Those arguments did not engage the scope of the Committee’s power of review and of the Tribunal’s power of review recalled in Judgment 4977, consideration 2. They are therefore unfounded, as is the complainant’s claim for moral damages for the “wrongful report” consequentially.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1136, 3161, 3318, 4977
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4979
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2012-2013.
Considerations 4 and 6-7
Extract:
In light of the limited scope of the review the Tribunal exercises over staff reports the Tribunal may, if appropriate, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
In its opinion, the Appeals Committee correctly appreciated that its scope of review of a staff appraisal was wider than that of the Tribunal. This was by reference to the case law stated in consideration 5 of Judgment 3318, considerations 5 to 8 of Judgment 3161 and consideration 6 of Judgment 3703 to the effect that it would commit an error of law if it restricts its review by reference to the scope of the Tribunal’s power of review. The Committee noted, in particular, that the case law required it to scrutinize the performance evaluation much more closely to determine whether the reporting officer had exercised her or his discretion lawfully and that its power of review extended to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to it concerning the contested staff report. This was except to the extent that the internal rules which governs it (the Committee) provides otherwise, its role being to determine whether the decision appealed is correct on the facts or whether some other decision should be made.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appeals Committee properly exercised its power of review.
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4978
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2012.
Considerations 6 and 13
Extract:
The complainant’s requests that the Tribunal decides the case and not refer it back to the EPO invites the Tribunal to determine the markings she should be awarded under each head of evaluation and the overall performance rating. The request is rejected by reference to the general principles recalled in Judgment 4977, consideration 2. The evaluation of a staff member’s performance falls within the discretion of the officers charged with conducting it. Since the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that made by the persons or bodies responsible for assessing an employee’s merits, the request would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgments 4893, consideration 5, and 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal however observes that it may, if appropriate, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
The complainant’s challenge to the merits of the contested staff report is also unfounded. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appeals Committee undertook a detailed, balanced, coherent and persuasive analysis of the evaluation made in the staff report and the methodology adopted. The Committee addressed in some detail the markings the complainant’s reporting and countersigning officers awarded in the contested staff report and reasonably concluded that their evaluation was flawed to the extent that the comments made in the category attitude to work and dealings with others were unbalanced and thereupon recommended the staff report be set aside in that respect. The Tribunal determines that the Committee, which in its opinion noted the discretion which a reporting officer enjoys in conducting an assessment, properly acted within its review powers when it so concluded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4786, 4893, 4977
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal determines, as it did in consideration 12 of Judgment 4713 on that complaint (citing Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9) that the complainant, who bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that her allegations of bias or partiality are well founded, has not discharged that burden. Her pleas of bias and partiality repeated in this complaint are therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543, 4713
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4977
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2012-2013.
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:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; 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; former official; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4976
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2010-2011.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
Regarding the alleged substantive flaws in the contested staff report, the complainant’s contention to the effect that the overall performance marking which he received lacks proper basis as it does not correspond to his performance for the period of assessment is based on the complainant’s subjective view of his performance for that period rather than upon any discernible unlawfulness within the Tribunal’s limited power of review. It is accordingly unfounded.
It is notable, as the EPO points out, that the contested report conveys a favourable assessment of the complainant’s performance. Moreover, he does not allege any adverse effect arising from this favourable evaluation nor does he allege that the positive markings he received have caused or are liable to cause him any injury. In fact, the complainant fails to prove that the markings and the overall performance rating he was awarded in the contested staff report were in breach of a proper procedure and did not benefit from a thorough assessment. The Tribunal is satisfied, as is obvious from the Appeals Committee’s conclusion, which was accepted in the impugned decision, that the complainant’s reporting and countersigning officers fairly substantiated the markings and the overall performance rating they awarded to him in the report.
Keywords:
performance evaluation; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4962
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance appraisal for 2019 and the subsequent decisions to “freeze” her step advancement and to place her on a performance improvement plan.
Considerations 7 and 13-14
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal rappelle […] sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l’évaluation des mérites d’un fonctionnaire au cours d’une période déterminée fait appel à un jugement de valeur, ce qui exige de sa part qu’il respecte le pouvoir d’appréciation des organes chargés de procéder à une telle évaluation. Si le Tribunal doit certes contrôler si les notes attribuées au fonctionnaire ont été à tous égards régulièrement établies, il ne lui appartient cependant pas de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle des personnes et/ou organes chargés de procéder à l’évaluation des membres du personnel d’une organisation internationale. Le Tribunal n’interviendra en conséquence que si un tel rapport émane d’une autorité incompétente, a été établi en violation d’une règle de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte d’un fait essentiel, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou est entaché de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4564, aux considérants 3 et 8, 4258, au considérant 2, 3692, au considérant 8, 3268, au considérant 9, 3228, au considérant 3, 3062, au considérant 3, et 1688, au considérant 5).
[…]
[L]e Tribunal relève d’abord que la circonstance que les membres du Comité des rapports ont formulé des considérations parfois divergentes au cours de leurs discussions tend, contrairement à ce qu’affirme la requérante, à conduire à la conclusion que ces membres ont bien rempli leurs fonctions de manière indépendante et impartiale.
[…]
Le Tribunal en conclut que, si les opinions des membres du Comité des rapports ont pu diverger au cours des discussions, il n’en reste pas moins que leur recommandation finale a été formulée à l’unanimité.
Enfin, le Tribunal estime que le Directeur général a pu, dans le cadre du large pouvoir d’appréciation dont il dispose en la matière, considérer que l’établissement d’un plan d’amélioration des performances destiné à permettre à la requérante de rectifier sa conduite au sein de l’Organisation était plus indiqué qu’une simple mutation de l’intéressée.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4258, 4564
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance evaluation; rating; step; supervision; supervisor;
Judgment 4961
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of moral harassment, as well as what she regards as a decision to cancel her performance appraisal for 2019 and the decision to reinstate her former line manager and to make him responsible for conducting her annual appraisal for 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; performance evaluation; rating; supervision; supervisor;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
