Evaluation (661,-666)
Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: Evaluation
Jugements trouvés: 107
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | suivant >
Jugement 5176
141e session, 2026
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Requête admise;
Considérants 4 et 8
Extrait:
“[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.”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Pouvoir d'appréciation;
Jugement 5134
141e session, 2026
Organisation internationale pour les migrations
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his contract based on his unsatisfactory performance.
Considérants 6-7
Extrait:
Similarly, with respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. It stated the following in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, and confirmed it in Judgment 4840, consideration 7:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7). (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)”
Also, the Tribunal recalls the following in Judgment 4666, consideration 4:
“An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked […]".
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713, 4840
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Renouvellement de contrat; Requête admise;
Considérants 8-9
Extrait:
The Tribunal finds that the record establishes the Organization’s failure to abide by its own policies and procedures, thereby violating the principle by which an organisation is bound by its own rules.
[…]
By not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s performance, through combined use of a SES, a Special SES and a PIP, the Organization not only violated Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 but also breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve his performance.
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation;
Jugement 5113
141e session, 2026
Conférence de la Charte de l'énergie
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Considérants 7-8
Extrait:
“[I]n terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. […] ‘[…] ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’” […] in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.”
The Tribunal finds that the organisation breached its duty of care in its treatment of the complainant. […]
There is no evidence that the concerns regarding the complainant’s performance were brought to his attention at any time prior to […], when the completed PAR was forwarded to him. The decision not to renew his appointment was taken just three weeks later. As a result, he was not afforded an opportunity to address or rectify the alleged shortcomings in his performance, nor was he granted a reasonable period within which any improvement could have been expected to occur.”
Mots-clés:
Application des règles de procédure; Appréciation des services; Avertissement; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
Jugement 5111
141e session, 2026
Conférence de la Charte de l'énergie
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Considérant 7
Extrait:
“[A]n organisation may not decide to terminate or not renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance unless it has properly followed its appraisal procedures and given the staff member a fair opportunity to improve […]. However, in the present case, the non-renewal was not based on unsatisfactory performance but rather on alleged budgetary constraints. Therefore, although the appraisal process was manifestly flawed, such irregularities do not render the non-renewal decision unlawful and do not warrant the setting aside of the decision insofar as it was not performance-related.”
Mots-clés:
Durée déterminée; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance; Services insatisfaisants;
Jugement 5034
140e session, 2025
Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: 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.
Considérant 9
Extrait:
Dès lors que le litige porte essentiellement sur l’appréciation des performances de la requérante pour l’année 2019, le Tribunal rappelle à cet égard 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 le rapport d’évaluation contesté 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 4962, au considérant 7, 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).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4258, 4564, 4962
Mots-clés:
Appréciation des services; Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Pouvoir d'appréciation;
Considérant 11
Extrait:
[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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2064, 3039, 4962
Mots-clés:
Appréciation des services; Délai; Evaluation; Notation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Appréciation des services; Evaluation; Harcèlement; Requête admise;
Jugement 5029
140e session, 2025
Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019 et le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Appréciation des services; Evaluation; Harcèlement; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 5012
140e session, 2025
Fonds vert pour le climat
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision du GCF de ne pas le confirmer dans son poste et de mettre fin à son engagement à l’issue de sa période de stage prolongée.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Application des règles de procédure; Evaluation; Licenciement; Performance; Période probatoire; Requête admise;
Jugement 5011
140e session, 2025
Fonds vert pour le climat
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision du GCF de prolonger sa période de stage.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Obligation d'information; Performance; Période probatoire; Rapport de stage; Requête admise;
Jugement 5009
140e session, 2025
Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste la notation «Performance efficace» qui lui a été attribuée dans son rapport d’évaluation du comportement professionnel pour la période allant de juin 2017 à mai 2018, ainsi que l’observation qui y figure selon laquelle elle était en congé prolongé et a travaillé à temps partiel pendant la période d’évaluation.
Considérant 4
Extrait:
The Tribunal recalled the principles which govern the Tribunal's consideration of contentious appraisal reports, set out in Judgment 4654, considerations 2 and 3, and recalled in Judgment 4796, consideration 5. It also referred to Judgment 4902, consideration 9, which stated that “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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4654, 4713, 4786, 4787, 4796, 4902
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Considérant 5
Extrait:
Even if there is an arguable flaw in an evaluation report, there are limits on what powers the Tribunal might exercise if established. This limitation was adverted to in Judgment 4894, consideration 6: '[T]he additional relief sought by the complainant [...] includes that the text in his staff report for 2009 be amended by order of the Tribunal. But it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1)'.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4786, 4894
Mots-clés:
Conclusions; Evaluation; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Harcèlement; Requête rejetée;
Considérants 8-10
Extrait:
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.
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Harcèlement; Notation; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4986
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2017.
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)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786, 4788
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4985
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2017.
Considérants 1 et 4
Extrait:
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).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1688, 4564
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4983
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2017.
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)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1688, 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4982
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2017.
Considérants 3 et 7
Extrait:
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.)
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4257, 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4786, 4788
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4981
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2017.
Considérant 7
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1136, 3228, 3945, 4564, 4720
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4980
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport de notation pour 2012-2013.
Considérants 3, 6 et 9
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1136, 3161, 3318, 4977
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4979
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport de notation pour 2012-2013.
Considérants 4 et 6-7
Extrait:
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.
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4978
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport de notation pour 2012.
Considérants 6 et 13
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4786, 4893, 4977
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4977
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport de notation pour 2012-2013.
Considérant 2
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1136, 3228, 3945, 4564, 4720
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4976
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport de notation pour 2010-2011.
Considérants 5-6
Extrait:
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.
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Jugement 4962
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: 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 de ses performances.
Considérants 7 et 13-14
Extrait:
[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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4258, 4564
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Notation; Pouvoir d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Echelon; Evaluation; Notation; Requête admise; Supervision; Supérieur hiérarchique;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | suivant >
|
