Judgment No. 3148
Decision
1. The decision of the Director of the CDE of 28 April 2009 and the complainant's assessment report for 2008 are set aside.
2. The Centre shall pay the complainant compensation in the amount of 10,000 euros for moral injury.
3. It shall also pay him 5,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service; performance evaluation
Consideration 7
Extract:
[W]hile it is true that where a staff member has received assurances, in accordance with the principle of good faith, he or she is entitled to demand the fulfilment of his or her expectations, consistent precedent has it that the right to fulfilment of a promise is subject to the condition that it must be substantive, i.e. to act, or not to act, or to allow, that it should come from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it; that breach should cause injury to him or her who relies on it; and that the position in law should not have altered between the date of the promise and the date on which fulfilment is due (see, for example, Judgments 782, under 1, and 3005, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 782, 3005
Keywords
good faith; promise; duty of care
Consideration 14
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, the lack or inadequacy of an explanation can be remedied at the appeal stage provided that the appeal body may examine the complete file and that the staff member is given his or her full say (see, in particular, Judgment 2668, under 7(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2668
Keywords
motivation
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that an assessment report constitutes a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and, as such, it may be contested by means of an internal complaint lodged with the prescribed time limits. It may even be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgment 2991, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991
Keywords
performance evaluation
Consideration 25
Extract:
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that, where the reason for not renewing a contract is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of a staff member, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation can base its decision only on an assessment carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, in particular, Judgment 2991, under 13, and the case law cited therein). This presupposes that the person in question has been informed in advance of what is expected of him or her, in particular, by the communication of a precise description of the objectives set.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991
Keywords
non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service
|
