Performance (955,-666)

Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: Performance
Jugements trouvés: 17

• 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;
  

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance; Requête admise; Services insatisfaisants;
  

  
  
  

• 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 5100

  
  141e session, 2026
  Bureau de recherche macroéconomique de l'ASEAN+3
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste la décision de prolonger son contrat d’un an seulement.

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance; Prolongation de contrat; Requête admise; Services insatisfaisants;
  

  
  
  

• 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;
  

  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 5008

  
  140e session, 2025
  Organisation internationale du Travail
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant attaque la décision de le renvoyer pour motif disciplinaire.

  Considérant 11

  Extrait:

  The complainant’s previous period of unblemished service is not necessarily a mitigating factor […].

  Mots-clés:

  Circonstances atténuantes; Performance; Proportionnalité; Sanction disciplinaire;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4916

  
  139e session, 2025
  Conférence de la Charte de l'énergie
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour la période allant du 1er novembre 2019 au 31 octobre 2020, ainsi que la décision de ne pas renouveler son engagement en raison de services insatisfaisants et d’une perte de confiance.

  Considérant 4

  Extrait:

  The Tribunal also recalls its well-established case law regarding its limited power of review of decisions relating to performance evaluations. As stated in Judgment 4267, consideration 4, “assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement, signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3006, consideration 7, and 3062, consideration 3) [...]”.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3006, 3062, 4267
  

  Mots-clés:

  Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Limites; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation;
  

  Considérant 7

  Extrait:

  The complainant […] seeks the annulment of her 29 October 2020 [Performance Appraisal Report – PAR], covering the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020, and the re-opening of the performance appraisal procedure for that period to correct the substantive and procedural errors committed in her PAR. However, given the time that has elapsed since the complainant’s separation from the organisation, the Tribunal finds no useful purpose to order the re-opening of the performance appraisal procedure for the aforementioned period.
  As the complainant has established that her 29 October 2020 PAR and the resulting decision not to renew her appointment were tainted by an error of law, […] the complainant’s 29 October 2020 PAR must be annulled.

  Mots-clés:

  Annulation de la décision; Erreur de droit; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation;
  

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Erreur de droit; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête admise; Témoignage; Témoin; Violation du principe de confidentialité;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4902

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son évaluation de performance pour 2019, qui a été qualifiée d’«acceptable».

  Considérant 9

  Extrait:

  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: 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
  

  Mots-clés:

  Notation; Performance; Rôle du Tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4901

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son évaluation de performance pour 2018, qui a été qualifiée d’«acceptable».

  Considérant 11

  Extrait:

  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.)

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
  

  Mots-clés:

  Notation; Performance; Rôle du Tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4840

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation internationale pour les migrations
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste la décision de ne pas renouveler son contrat de durée déterminée en raison de résultats insuffisants après qu’elle a été soumise à un plan d’amélioration des performances de trois mois.

  Considérant 18

  Extrait:

  [I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Evaluation; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Violation;
  

  Considérant 5

  Extrait:

  [T]he Tribunal disagrees with IOM’s assertion that the complaint is allegedly irreceivable (for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as the underlying appeal was not filed within the applicable deadline), insofar as it concerns the decisions, communicated to the complainant on 13 June 2019, to establish the PIP (including any alleged violation of the SES process) and to extend the complainant’s contract for a three-month period corresponding to the PIP’s duration. The Tribunal considers that a staff member may challenge the decision to subject her to a PIP in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the PIP process. In Judgment 3713, consideration 3, the Tribunal recalled that:
  “[I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13).” (See also Judgment 3890, consideration 5.)
  In the present case, the decision taken at the end of the PIP process was a decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract due to underperformance and this decision resulted in the complainant being separated from IOM. This being so, the Tribunal considers that the above cited case law from Judgments 3713, consideration 3, and 3890, consideration 5, is equally applicable in a case such as the present. And given that the complainant impugns her final contract extension and ultimate non-renewal, it is of no relevance whether the issue of her prior three-month extension is receivable.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2366, 3198, 3713, 3890
  

  Mots-clés:

  Décision définitive; Etape de la procédure; Evaluation; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Services insatisfaisants;
  

  Considérant 20

  Extrait:

  [A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
  It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Evaluation; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  Considérants 23-24

  Extrait:

  [T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
  In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in 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. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
  “As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘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 [...].’”
  Similarly, 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”.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2916, 3026, 3282
  

  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;
  

  Considérant 7

  Extrait:

  With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
  “[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.)

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713
  

  Mots-clés:

  Contrôle du Tribunal; Déductions manifestement inexactes; Détournement de pouvoir; Erreur de droit; Erreur de fait; Evaluation; Limites; Performance;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4770

  
  137e session, 2024
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision de le renvoyer pour inconduite.

  Considérant 20

  Extrait:

  [L]a période antérieure de service irréprochable du requérant au sein de la FAO ne constituait pas, en soi, une circonstance atténuante (voir le jugement 3083, au considérant 20), même si cela peut parfois être le cas (voir le jugement 4457, au considérant 20).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3083, 4457
  

  Mots-clés:

  Circonstances atténuantes; Performance; Sanction disciplinaire;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4678

  
  136e session, 2023
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour le développement industriel
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste les décisions de ne pas prolonger son engagement de durée déterminée pour cause de services insatisfaisants et de suspendre son avancement d’échelon dans la classe.

  Considérant 4

  Extrait:

  [L]e Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence constante concernant l’évaluation des services d’un fonctionnaire et le renouvellement d’un contrat à durée déterminée. Une organisation jouit d’un large pouvoir d’appréciation lorsqu’elle prend de telles décisions, qui ne peuvent faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint du Tribunal, qui ne les censurera que si elles ont été prises en violation d’une règle de compétence, de forme ou de procédure, si elles reposent sur une erreur de fait ou de droit, si des éléments essentiels n’ont pas été pris en considération, s’il a été tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées ou si un détournement de pouvoir a été commis (voir le jugement 4170, au considérant 9, et la jurisprudence citée). Si le motif invoqué pour ne pas renouveler un contrat repose sur les services insatisfaisants de l’agent intéressé, qui est en droit d’être informé à temps de ce qu’on lui reproche, l’organisation ne peut fonder sa décision que sur une évaluation de son travail effectuée dans le respect de règles préalablement établies (voir, en particulier, le jugement 2991, au considérant 13, et la jurisprudence citée). Cela suppose que l’intéressé ait été informé à l’avance de ce que l’on attendait de lui, notamment par la communication d’une description précise des objectifs fixés (voir le jugement 3148, au considérant 25).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2991, 3148, 4170
  

  Mots-clés:

  Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance; Rôle du Tribunal; Services insatisfaisants;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4543

  
  134e session, 2022
  Fonds international de développement agricole
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2016.

  Considérant 4

  Extrait:

  Le Tribunal rappelle [...] que, selon sa jurisprudence constante en la matière, l’évaluation des mérites d’un fonctionnaire au cours d’une période déterminée fait appel à un jugement de valeur, ce qui exige du Tribunal qu’il reconnaisse le pouvoir d’appréciation des organes chargés de procéder à une telle évaluation. Un rapport d’évaluation des performances sera donc uniquement annulé pour un vice de forme ou de procédure, une erreur de droit ou de fait, l’omission de tenir compte de faits essentiels, un détournement de pouvoir ou des déductions manifestement inexactes tirées du dossier (voir, notamment, les jugements 3692, au considérant 8, 3842, au considérant 7, et 4010, au considérant 5).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3692, 3842, 4010
  

  Mots-clés:

  Performance; Pouvoir d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
  

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Performance; Requête rejetée;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4542

  
  134e session, 2022
  Fonds international de développement agricole
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pendant sa période de stage.

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Performance; Période probatoire; Requête admise;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4513

  
  134e session, 2022
  Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision de ne pas convertir son engagement de jeune diplômé de l’enseignement supérieur lorsqu’il est arrivé à échéance et de mettre fin à celui-ci.

  Considérant 5

  Extrait:

  Selon la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, une décision de ne pas renouveler un contrat de durée déterminée est de nature discrétionnaire mais, lorsque cette décision est fondée sur des services insatisfaisants, l’évaluation des services doit être faite dans le respect des règles établies à cette fin et il s’ajoute à cette obligation celle de donner à la personne concernée la possibilité de s’améliorer (voir, notamment, le jugement 4289, au considérant 7, et la jurisprudence citée). Ces principes sont également applicables lorsqu’il s’agit, comme en l’espèce, de décider ou non de la conversion d’un engagement comme jeune diplômé en un engagement à durée indéterminée ou pour une durée limitée.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4289
  

  Mots-clés:

  Courte durée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4502

  
  134e session, 2022
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste la décision de ne pas reclasser son poste.

  Considérant 13

  Extrait:

  Ainsi qu’en font foi les extraits déjà cités du jugement 4221, au considérant 11, le classement d’un poste ne concerne en aucun cas la manière dont le titulaire s’acquitte de ses tâches (voir également le jugement 4000, au considérant 9).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4000, 4221
  

  Mots-clés:

  Classement de poste; Performance;