Rapport d'appréciation (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)
Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: Rapport d'appréciation
Jugements trouvés: 199
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | suivant >
Jugement 4986
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 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;
Considérant 7
Extrait:
The complainant has not discharged his burden of proof in demonstrating that the reporting and the countersigning officers acted partially or lacked objectivity (see, for example, Judgment 4637, consideration 17). […]
As regards the complainant’s allegation regarding the alleged unsubstantiated, discriminatory, and arbitrary setting of his functional and core competencies, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the burden of proving such allegations – which, in reality, amounts to accusing his reporting and countersigning officers of bias – rests with the complainant, and mere suspicion is clearly insufficient (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 17, and 4010, consideration 9). In this case, the complainant has failed to provide any credible evidence showing that his functional and core competencies were evaluated on discriminatory or arbitrary grounds. His arguments regarding competency settings appear to be a disagreement with the weight given to certain incidents, rather than evidence of unfair treatment.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4010, 4637
Mots-clés:
Charge de la preuve; Notation; Partialité; Rapport d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4985
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 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;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4984
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Considérant 2
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4637
Mots-clés:
Ancien fonctionnaire; Intérêt à agir; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4983
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Considérant 7
Extrait:
The complainant has not discharged his burden of proof in demonstrating that the reporting and the countersigning officers acted partially or lacked objectivity (see, for example, 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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3380, 4382, 4543, 4637
Mots-clés:
Charge de la preuve; Notation; Partialité; Rapport d'appréciation;
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: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 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;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4981
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2017.
Considérant 2
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4637
Mots-clés:
Ancien fonctionnaire; Intérêt à agir; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
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;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4980
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his staff report for 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;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4979
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his staff report for 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;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4978
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges her staff report for 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;
Considérant 12
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3380, 4543, 4713
Mots-clés:
Charge de la preuve; Notation; Partialité; Rapport d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4977
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges her staff report for 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;
Considérant 4
Extrait:
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).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4637, 4893
Mots-clés:
Ancien fonctionnaire; Intérêt à agir; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4976
139e session, 2025
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his staff report for 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;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4916
139e session, 2025
Conférence de la Charte de l'énergie
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: 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.
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;
Considérant 8
Extrait:
The complainant seeks material damages equivalent to the remuneration, including benefits and allowances, she would have received had her contract been renewed for one year. It should be noted that the complainant held a temporary appointment which, according to its terms and the Tribunal’s case law, carried no expectation of renewal (see, for example, Judgments 4588, consideration 19, 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3580, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). Even if the complainant’s 2020 PAR had been properly conducted and there was no flaw in the procedure, there is no guarantee that it would have resulted in a favourable outcome for the renewal of her appointment. However, since the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to have her contract renewed, she is entitled to material damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the amount of 30,000 euros.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3448, 3580, 4462, 4587, 4588
Mots-clés:
Dommages-intérêts pour tort matériel; Erreur de droit; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Perte de chance; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 9
Extrait:
As the complainant has established moral injury occasioned by the negative appraisal of her performance in her 2020 PAR and the resulting recommendation not to renew her appointment, she is also entitled to 10,000 euros in moral damages, as per her claim.
Mots-clés:
Erreur de fait; Evaluation; Indemnité pour tort moral; Rapport d'appréciation; Tort moral;
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: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4901
138e session, 2024
Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4897
138e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour l’année 2018.
Considérant 6
Extrait:
[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. Il doit certes contrôler si les notes attribuées au fonctionnaire ont été à tous égards régulièrement établies, mais il ne peut se substituer à ces organes pour apprécier les qualités, les prestations et le comportement de l’intéressé. Aussi le Tribunal ne censurera-t-il un rapport d’évaluation que si celui-ci 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 4795, au considérant 9, 4564, au considérant 3, 4267, au considérant 4, 3692, au considérant 8, 3228, au considérant 3, ou 3062, au considérant 3).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 16
Extrait:
[L]a requérante fait valoir que l’échelle d’appréciation à quatre degrés ainsi mise en application ne permettrait pas d’évaluer les fonctionnaires avec autant de finesse que le barème de notation à huit niveaux utilisé dans le système d’évaluation antérieur. […]
[L]a fixation de telles grilles d’évaluation procède de choix d’opportunité relevant du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’Organisation, dont – mise à part l’hypothèse extrême, qui ne se rencontre pas ici, où il aurait été fait un usage manifestement abusif de ce pouvoir – il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de connaître.
Mots-clés:
Notation; Pouvoir d'appréciation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 8
Extrait:
[L]a requérante voit une irrégularité dans le fait que ces objectifs lui aient été imposés par son évaluateur alors qu’elle avait exprimé des réserves à leur sujet […] Il est vrai que les directives du 20 décembre 2017 définissent le développement de la performance comme «le processus par lequel managers et agents s’accordent, dans un esprit de collaboration, sur la contribution individuelle que l’agent doit apporter pour permettre à l’OEB de remplir sa mission». Mais on ne saurait analyser cette indication, qui vise seulement à exposer l’esprit général du dispositif d’évaluation institué par ces directives, comme ayant entendu édicter une norme selon laquelle tout objectif individuel assigné à un fonctionnaire par son évaluateur devrait impérativement être arrêté d’un commun accord.
Dans leur section III.1, relative à la «[f]ixation des objectifs», les directives en cause prévoient que «[l]a traduction des objectifs du domaine concerné en objectifs individuels [...] fait l’objet d’un entretien entre l’évaluateur [...] et l’agent». Même si les objectifs arrêtés à l’issue de cet entretien sont qualifiés dans la suite du texte – de façon quelque peu maladroite – d’«objectifs convenus», le Tribunal estime que ces dispositions doivent s’interpréter comme exigeant seulement que l’évaluateur consulte le fonctionnaire concerné sur la fixation des objectifs qu’il entend lui assigner, et non que ces derniers recueillent nécessairement l’assentiment du fonctionnaire.
Mots-clés:
Consultation; Interpretation des règles; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 11
Extrait:
Si la requérante se plaint […] qu’il n’ait pas été tenu compte, dans la fixation de ses objectifs de production, du temps qu’elle était amenée à consacrer à des entretiens avec le Département des ressources humaines concernant sa situation individuelle, le Tribunal estime que – sauf circonstances exceptionnelles, dont il n’est pas justifié en l’espèce – il n’y a effectivement pas lieu de prendre en considération un tel facteur pour la détermination des objectifs annuels d’un fonctionnaire.
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 12
Extrait:
[L]a requérante estime que les objectifs qui lui avaient été assignés auraient dû faire l’objet d’une réactualisation en cours d’année. Mais la section III.1 précitée des directives prévoit, à ce sujet, que les objectifs fixés «peuvent [...] être actualisés/revus dans le courant de l’année selon les besoins du service». Il s’agit donc là d’une simple faculté […].
Mots-clés:
Interpretation des règles; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Considérant 3
Extrait:
[L]’intéressée critique, en premier lieu, le fait que la Commission d’évaluation instituée, à compter du 1er janvier 2015, par l’article 110bis du Statut des fonctionnaires de l’Office ne comporte pas, à la différence de la Commission de recours interne – qui était jusqu’alors compétente en matière de contestation des rapports d’évaluation –, de représentant du personnel. Mais le Tribunal a déjà eu l’occasion de juger que cette caractéristique ne rendait pas inadéquate la composition du nouvel organe ainsi créé (voir les jugements 4795, au considérant 7, 4637, au considérant 11, et 4257, au considérant 13). Ce moyen sera donc écarté.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4257, 4637, 4795
Mots-clés:
Notation; Organe consultatif; Rapport d'appréciation; Représentant du personnel;
Considérants 14-15
Extrait:
[S]elon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, le cadre réglementaire d’une procédure d’évaluation ne peut être modifié, du moins dans ses éléments substantiels, par une disposition adoptée après le début de la période d’évaluation concernée (voir notamment le jugement 4257, au considérant 10, explicitant la teneur du jugement 3185, au considérant 7). Cette solution, qui vaut bien entendu au premier chef pour la définition des critères au regard desquels est opérée l’évaluation, se justifie par la nécessité de respecter tant le principe de non-rétroactivité des actes administratifs que les exigences de bonne foi, de transparence et d’équité qui s’imposent en matière d’évaluation des fonctionnaires […]
[L]e Tribunal estime que les règles complémentaires ainsi prévues ne sauraient être regardées comme ayant modifié de manière substantielle la procédure d’évaluation définie par les directives, dès lors notamment que la connaissance préalable de ces règles n’eût été aucunement de nature, en tout état de cause, à influer sur le comportement professionnel des fonctionnaires concernés pendant la période d’évaluation.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3185, 4257
Mots-clés:
Bonne foi; Non-rétroactivité; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 4
Extrait:
[L]e Tribunal estime que, pour regrettable qu’elle soit, la brièveté du délai imparti à la requérante pour saisir la Commission d’évaluation n’a pas été, en l’espèce, de nature à porter atteinte aux droits de l’intéressée à bénéficier d’un recours effectif et d’une procédure régulière (voir, s’agissant des exigences de la jurisprudence à cet égard, le jugement 4795, au considérant 7).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4795
Mots-clés:
Droit de recours; Délai; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Jugement 4896
138e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour l’année 2018.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Recevabilité de la requête; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4894
138e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête admise;
Considérants 3 et 6
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3161, 4564, 4786
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4893
138e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2008-2009.
Considérants 4-5
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4786
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Considérant 3
Extrait:
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).”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4637
Mots-clés:
Ancien fonctionnaire; Intérêt à agir; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4892
138e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2008-2009 and the decision not to initiate a harassment procedure against her reporting officer.
Considérant 5
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4786
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Considérant 6
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2259, 2318, 4010, 4745
Mots-clés:
Charge de la preuve; Notation; Partialité; Rapport d'appréciation;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4891
138e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Considérant 4
Extrait:
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).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4713, 4731, 4795
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Considérant 13
Extrait:
[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).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1688, 4564
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | suivant >
|
