Judgment No. 4789
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4637, 4721
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure; report of the internal appeals body
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]here is no support in the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office or in the case law for the complainant’s statement, in response to the EPO’s submissions, that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate on invoked inconsistencies between the terms of employment derivable from the European Patent Convention and the Service Regulations, including on the suspicions of bias. Quite on the contrary, the Tribunal has already ruled on the issue by asserting that, generally, decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not affect a staff member’s relationship with the Organisation (see, for example, Judgments 4417, considerations 7 and 8, and 3053, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3053, 4417
Keywords
cause of action
Consideration 6
Extract:
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:
“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. [...]
[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.”
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564
Keywords
performance report; rating; judicial review; performance evaluation; role of the tribunal
|
