Performance report (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Performance report
Total judgments found: 199
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; complaint allowed; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; testimony; witness;
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”.
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;
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[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 appraisal 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, Judgments 4795, consideration 9, 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, or 3062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report; rating;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that the four-point assessment scale thus applied does not allow staff members to be assessed as accurately as the eight-point rating scale used in the former assessment system.
[T]he establishment of such assessment scales is a policy choice falling within the Organisation’s discretion with which – apart from in the extreme case of a clear abuse of that power, which does not arise here – it is not for the Tribunal to concern itself.
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; rating;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant perceives a breach in the fact that those goals were imposed on her by her reporting officer although she had expressed reservations in their regard [...] It is true that the Guidelines of 20 December 2017 define performance development as “the process by which managers and staff collaboratively agree upon the contribution to be made by individual staff members to enable the EPO to fulfil its mission”. But this statement, which merely aims to explain the general principle underlying the assessment system introduced by the Guidelines, cannot be construed as having intended to lay down a rule according to which any individual goal assigned to a staff member by her or his reporting officer must mandatorily be adopted by mutual agreement.
In Section III.1 concerning “[g]oal setting”, the Guidelines provide that “[t]he translation of business area goals into individual goals [...] is discussed by the reporting officer [...] and the staff member at a meeting”. Even if the text goes on to refer – somewhat awkwardly – to the goals set following that meeting as “the agreed goals”, the Tribunal considers that these provisions must be construed as only requiring that the reporting officer consult the staff member concerned on the goals that the reporting officer intends to assign to her or him, and not that those goals must receive the staff member’s assent.
Keywords:
consultation; interpretation of rules; performance report; rating;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although the complainant alleges [...] that no account was taken when setting her production goals of the time she had to spend on meetings with the human resources department regarding her personal situation, the Tribunal finds that – except in exceptional circumstances, which are not demonstrated in this case – that factor does not need to be taken into consideration when setting a staff member’s annual goals.
Keywords:
performance report; rating;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that the goals assigned to her should have been updated during the year. However, aforementioned Section III.1 of the Guidelines provides in this connection that the goals set “may [...] be reviewed in the course of the year, depending on business requirements”. This is therefore merely an option [...].
Keywords:
interpretation of rules; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In this regard, in the first place, the complainant takes issue with the fact that the Appraisals Committee, established from 1 January 2015 by Article 110a of the Service Regulations, does not include a staff representative, unlike the Internal Appeals Committee which had until then been responsible for dealing with challenges to appraisal reports. However, the Tribunal has already held that this characteristic does not mean that the composition of the new body is inadequate (see Judgments 4795, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 11, and 4257, consideration 13). This plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637, 4795
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, the regulatory framework of an appraisal procedure, or in any event the substantive elements thereof, may not be amended by a provision adopted after the beginning of the reporting period concerned (see in particular Judgment 4257, consideration 10, explaining the content of Judgment 3185, consideration 7). That approach, which of course applies first and foremost to the setting of the criteria on the basis of which the assessment is performed, is justified by the need to observe both the principle of the non-retroactivity of administrative acts and the requirements of good faith, transparency and fairness that are incumbent in the matter of staff appraisals. [...]
[T]he Tribunal considers that these additional rules cannot be regarded as having substantially altered the assessment procedure set out in the Guidelines, especially since prior knowledge of these rules would not in any event have influenced the professional conduct of the staff members concerned during the reporting period.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 4257
Keywords:
good faith; non-retroactivity; performance report; rating;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that, however regrettable, the short time limit granted to the complainant to refer the matter to the Appraisals Committee was not, in this case, such as to breach her rights to an effective appeal or due process (see, as regards the requirements of the case law on this point, Judgment 4795, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4795
Keywords:
performance report; rating; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4896
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2018.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4894
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance report; rating;
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
In its opinion of 1 December 2014, the Internal Appeals Committee firstly considered its role and secondly the merits of the complainant’s internal appeal. As to its role, it firstly noted, correctly, the limited role of the Tribunal in reviewing staff reports which are discretionary in nature. However, and importantly (a matter not understood by all internal appeals bodies), it said that an internal appeal body can “determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should have been made” citing Judgment 3161, consideration 6.
[…]
It is now convenient to consider the additional relief sought by the complainant. This 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). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, this would be review of a report concerning the appraisal of the complainant some considerable time ago. There should be no such remittal though the complainant may gain some comfort from the conclusions of the Internal Appeals Committee (together with the observations of the Tribunal in this judgment), whose opinion should be included in his personnel file, if it is not already. It is also assumed that the present judgment will be included in his personnel file.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4893
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2008-2009.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
It is convenient to focus on the relief the complainant seeks. [...] His primary relief, as articulated in the rejoinder, is that the Tribunal “take a final decision on the merits”. The Tribunal takes this to include a reference to a claim made in the complaint form under the heading “[r]elief claimed”, that “the text [under] productivity in [the complainant’s] staff report [for] 2008-2009 should be amended by replacing the words [‘very good’] by [‘outstanding’], and the box marking should be amended correspondingly”. […]
However, 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). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, the complainant now eschews any desire to have the matter remitted. Accordingly, what remains is the impermissible request to the Tribunal to undertake the evaluation itself. This claim must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 3
Extract:
One of the arguments advanced by the EPO is that this complaint is irreceivable as it is moot particularly given that the complainant has long since ceased being a member of its staff. It might also be thought that, when he ceased being a member of staff, he no longer had a cause of action. There is, in the Tribunal’s case law, some support for the view that a former staff member, who has retired since a contested staff report was drawn up, has “a moral interest in challenging a report appraising her or his performance” and has a cause of action which endures beyond retirement (see Judgment 4637, consideration 7).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4892
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2008-2009 and the decision not to initiate a harassment procedure against her reporting officer.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The second subheading referred to earlier is that “[t]he contested [staff report] is unjustified”. This is tantamount to an invitation to the Tribunal to enter the issue of whether a particular assessment in a performance appraisal report is appropriate. However, 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). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. But that is done only if a legal flaw is demonstrated. It is not in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The third subheading referred to earlier is that “[s]landerous/libellous comments have been disseminated about me”. This is a contention concerning the conduct of Mr T.E. The only relevance of this plea in relation to the staff report would be if the complainant was able to establish that Mr T.E. had been actuated by bias or ill will towards her which infected his assessment of her performance. In the main, the evidence relied upon by the complainant concerns matters of detail including comments to which she takes exception or comments that she views as contradictory, but nonetheless views as proof of bias or ill will. None of the evidence, either in isolation or in aggregate, demonstrates bias or ill will on the part of Mr T.E. in the preparation of the report, which was also the considered conclusion of the Appeals Committee’s majority. While the Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty in proving bias or ill will (see, for example, Judgments 2318, consideration 4, and 2259, consideration 13), nonetheless the burden of doing so falls on the complainant (see Judgments 4745, consideration 12, and 4010, consideration 9). In these proceedings, she has failed to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2259, 2318, 4010, 4745
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Before considering the complainant’s arguments, the Tribunal finds it convenient to recall the following statement that it made in Judgment 4795, consideration 9, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals:
“[...] As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of an employee’s merits 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, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).”
In other words, given that the staff report calls for a value judgement and the exercise of a discretionary power by the responsible bodies of the Organisation, the complainant must convince the Tribunal that the EPO breached a procedural requirement, that the staff report was made without authority or by an incompetent authority, or resulted from an abuse of authority, that a manifest error of law or fact was made, or that clearly wrong conclusions were reached from the record or from the overlook of material facts (see also Judgments 4731, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4713, 4731, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]n Judgment 4564, consideration 6, the Tribunal observed that a staff report “is an entirely separate document from previous staff reports [and that] a staff member cannot reasonably expect that favourable ratings that may previously have been awarded to her or him will automatically be maintained” (see also Judgment 1688, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 4564
Keywords:
performance report; rating;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
