ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations

Site Map \| Contact	français

	> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Judicial review (538, 540, 542, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 555, 557, 558, 862, 559, 561, 563, 565, 569, 571, 572, 927, 841,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Judicial review
Total judgments found: 556

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 | next >

Judgment 4904

138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste la d�cision de ne pas reconna�tre qu�il est atteint d�une invalidit�.

Consideration 2

Extract:

[S]elon [l]a jurisprudence [du Tribunal], s�il n�a pas qualit� pour substituer sa propre appr�ciation � celle formul�e par une commission statuant en mati�re m�dicale, telle une commission d�invalidit�, il est en revanche pleinement comp�tent pour contr�ler la r�gularit� de la proc�dure suivie et pour examiner si l�avis rendu par cette commission est entach� d�erreur mat�rielle ou de contradiction, s�il a n�glig� des faits essentiels ou s�il a tir� du dossier des conclusions manifestement erron�es (voir notamment les jugements 4709, au consid�rant 4, 4585, au consid�rant 10, 4473, au consid�rant 13, 4237, au consid�rant 5, 3994, au consid�rant 5, 2996, au consid�rant 11, 2361, au consid�rant 9, et 1284, au consid�rant 4).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709

Keywords:

invalidity; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4903

138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste le refus de le s�lectionner pour un poste de technicien en g�nie civil.

Consideration 6

Extract:

[E]n mati�re de nomination, le choix du candidat nomm� rel�ve du pouvoir d�appr�ciation de l�autorit� comp�tente pour proc�der � la nomination au sein de l�organisation concern�e. Une telle d�cision ne peut ainsi faire l�objet que d�un contr�le restreint par le Tribunal et ne sera censur�e que si elle �mane d�un organe incomp�tent, est entach�e d�un vice de forme ou de proc�dure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte de faits essentiels, est entach�e de d�tournement de pouvoir ou tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erron�es (voir, notamment, les jugements 3652, au consid�rant 7, et 3372, au consid�rant 12). En cons�quence, une personne qui s�est port�e candidate � un poste qu�une organisation a d�cid� de pourvoir par voie de concours, et dont la candidature n�a finalement pas �t� retenue, se doit de d�montrer que la proc�dure de s�lection a �t� entach�e d�un vice substantiel, en d�autres termes, que cette proc�dure a pr�sent� de graves imperfections (voir en ce sens, notamment, les jugements 4625, au consid�rant 3, 4001, au consid�rant 4, 3669, au consid�rant 4, et 1827, au consid�rant 6). Il est �galement entendu qu�en mati�re de concours il n�appartient pas au Tribunal de substituer son appr�ciation � celle des organes de s�lection comp�tents (voir les jugements 4594, au consid�rant 8, 4100, au consid�rant 5, et 1595, au consid�rant 4).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595, 1827, 3669, 4001, 4100, 4594, 4625

Keywords:

appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4897

138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: La requ�rante conteste son rapport d��valuation pour l�ann�e 2018.

Consideration 6

Extract:

[L]��valuation des m�rites d�un fonctionnaire au cours d�une p�riode d�termin�e fait appel � un jugement de valeur, ce qui exige de sa part qu�il respecte le pouvoir d�appr�ciation des organes charg�s de proc�der � une telle �valuation. Il doit certes contr�ler si les notes attribu�es au fonctionnaire ont �t� � tous �gards r�guli�rement �tablies, mais il ne peut se substituer � ces organes pour appr�cier les qualit�s, les prestations et le comportement de l�int�ress�. Aussi le Tribunal ne censurera-t-il un rapport d��valuation que si celui-ci �mane d�une autorit� incomp�tente, a �t� �tabli en violation d�une r�gle de forme ou de proc�dure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte d�un fait essentiel, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erron�es, ou est entach� de d�tournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4795, au consid�rant 9, 4564, au consid�rant 3, 4267, au consid�rant 4, 3692, au consid�rant 8, 3228, au consid�rant 3, ou 3062, au consid�rant 3).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795

Keywords:

judicial review; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4895

138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste la date de sa promotion avec effet r�troactif et demande � �tre promu � une date ant�rieure.

Consideration 3

Extract:

Il convient de rappeler qu�il est de jurisprudence constante qu�une organisation internationale jouit d�un large pouvoir d�appr�ciation en mati�re de promotion du personnel et que le Tribunal n�exerce donc qu�un contr�le limit� en la mati�re. Il n�interviendra que si la d�cision attaqu�e �mane d�une autorit� incomp�tente, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte d�un fait essentiel, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement inexactes, viole une r�gle de forme ou de proc�dure ou est entach�e de d�tournement de pouvoir (voir, notamment, les jugements 4391, au consid�rant 4, et 4290, au consid�rant 8). Le Tribunal a �galement d�j� pr�cis� que, d�s lors que l�appr�ciation d�une candidature � une promotion fait appel � un jugement de valeur, il n�a pas vocation � interf�rer dans ce processus d�cisionnel, sauf si celui-ci pr�sente de graves imperfections (voir, notamment, les jugements 4391, au consid�rant 4, 4290, au consid�rant 8, 4066, au consid�rant 3, et 1827, au consid�rant 6).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 4066, 4290, 4391

Keywords:

discretion; judicial review; promotion; work appraisal;

Judgment keywords

Keywords:

applicable law; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; discretion; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; oral proceedings; order; promotion; retroactivity; right to be heard; work appraisal;
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.

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;
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;
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.

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;
Judgment 4810

137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

Consideration 3

Extract:

It is firmly established in the case law that the classification of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or of the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgments 4186, consideration 6, and 3082, consideration 20). As a result, the Tribunal will only review such a classification on limited grounds. A classification decision can only be set aside if it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of law or fact, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 2, 4384, consideration 4, 4186, consideration 6, 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). This is because the classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts and the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 4186, 4186, 4384, 4437

Keywords:

judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4804

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.

Consideration 3

Extract:

[T]he Tribunal recalls that staff members have a right to bring complaints before the Tribunal and there should be no negative implications arising from the exercise of that right.

Keywords:

complaint; judicial review; retaliation;
Judgment 4795

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.

Considerations 9-10

Extract:

As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of anemployee�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).
Among the various pleas entered by the complainant [...], there is one that is decisive for the outcome of this dispute, [...] since it relates to a material fact that was allegedly overlooked. This is the plea that the President of the Boards of Appeal refused to take account of the fact that the 50 per cent exemption from duties granted to the complainant as a full member of the CSC, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Circular No. 356 concerning the resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee, was insufficient in the light of actual needs observed.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564

Keywords:

discretion; judicial review; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Judgment 4793

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Consideration 5

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)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4792

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Considerations 3 & 11

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.�
[�]
Regarding the third plea, the complainant�s argument to the effect that his 2016 performance assessment was not thoroughly done and was �extremely thin� implicitly invites the Tribunal into the realm of technical considerations regarding appraisal assessments that are not within its purview [�].

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4791

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

Considerations 4 & 8

Extract:

The complainant�s requests [�] to declare her 2016 appraisal report null and void, and [�] to declare the whole appraisal procedure null and void, including the appraisal report, are noted. The Tribunal simply 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.
[�]
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)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4790

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Considerations 2 & 7

Extract:

The complainant�s request [...] to order that his 2016 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� is rejected as irreceivable as it is not within the Tribunal�s power to change the overall assessment rating in an appraisal report (see, for example, Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 13).
[�]
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)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4789

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

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)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4788

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Considerations 4 & 7

Extract:

The complainant�s request for the orders stated in items (4), (5) and (7) are rejected as, in the main, they 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 also Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 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:
�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)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4564, 4718, 4719, 4720

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4787

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

Considerations 1, 5, 7 & 8

Extract:

The Tribunal rejects the complainant�s request for an order that the EPO issues a �flawless� appraisal report for 2016 so that she receives an overall performance rating of �above the level required for the function� rather than �corresponding to the level required for the function�. In the main, such request involves an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal 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.
[�]
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.�
[�]
The Committee [...] stated the well-established principle that appraisal reports are discretionary decisions that are subject to only limited review [�]
[�]
[I]t is not within the Tribunal�s power to change the overall assessment rating in an appraisal report (see, for example, Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 13).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4786

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

Considerations 1 & 4

Extract:

The Tribunal rejects the complainant�s request for an order that the EPO issues a new �flawless� appraisal report for 2016. In the main, such request involves an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal 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.
[�]
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)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564

Keywords:

judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4777

137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.

Consideration 3

Extract:

[T]he Tribunal�s case law [...] establishes that the executive head of an organisation has wide discretion in appointing or promoting staff and, therefore, the decisions that she or he takes in this area are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere in such a decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4552, consideration 2, 4451, consideration 6, and 3742, consideration 3). This case law also applies in the particular situation where, as in the present case, the object of the contested decision is to determine whether it is appropriate to rescind the award of a promotion to a staff member who now feels dissatisfied with it. In this regard, the complainant is, in reality, simply asking the Tribunal to replace the Secretary-General�s assessment by its own assessment of whether or not the promotion he received should be rescinded, which misconstrues the limited power of review of the Tribunal in such a case.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3742, 4451, 4552

Keywords:

appointment; discretion; judicial review; promotion;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 | next >

Last updated: 29.07.2024

^ top

Judicial review (538, 540, 542, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 555, 557, 558, 862, 559, 561, 563, 565, 569, 571, 572, 927, 841,-666)

Judgment 4904

Consideration 2

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4903

Consideration 6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4897

Consideration 6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4895

Consideration 3

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment keywords

Keywords:

Judgment 4894

Considerations 3 and 6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4893

Considerations 4-5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4892

Consideration 5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4891

Consideration 4

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4810

Consideration 3

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4804

Consideration 3

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4795

Considerations 9-10

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4793

Consideration 5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4792

Considerations 3 & 11

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4791

Considerations 4 & 8

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4790

Considerations 2 & 7

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4789

Consideration 6

Extract: