Judgment No. 4262
Decision
1. The EPO shall pay the complainant moral damages in the sum of 10,000 euros.
2. The EPO shall pay the complainant costs in the sum of 6,000 euros.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her performance management report for 2008.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; performance evaluation
Consideration 2
Extract:
In her rejoinder to the second complaint and in her brief in her sixth complaint, the complainant seeks the joinder of these two complaints because the former relates to an implied decision concerning the same subject matter as the latter, which relates to the express decision. This was not opposed by the EPO in its pleadings. Given that they raise the same issues of fact and law and seek the same relief, these two complaints will be joined to form the subject of a single judgment, consistent with the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 4114, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4114
Keywords
joinder
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
It is convenient to note at the outset that the role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8). [...]
To the extent the complainant invites the Tribunal to address whether there had been a misappraisal and to reappraise factual circumstances, it is an invitation the Tribunal, consistent with the case law, will not take up.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3228, 3692
Keywords
performance evaluation
Consideration 8
Extract:
If a complainant alleges that a decision was not taken in good faith or was taken for an improper purpose, she or he bears the burden of establishing the lack of good faith, bias or improper purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4146, consideration 10, 3743, consideration 12, and 2472, consideration 9). It is a serious allegation that must be clearly substantiated. At least the second and third matters referred to in the preceding consideration certainly illustrate inappropriate conduct on the part of VP1. But an allegation of bias ordinarily involves the notion that the decision maker is sufficiently antipathetic towards another for that antipathy to colour and influence the decision. In the present case, this is not established even inferentially.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2472, 3743, 4146
Keywords
burden of proof; bad faith
|
