ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Discretion (547, 548, 549, 550, 551,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Discretion
Total judgments found: 609

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, 29, 30, 31 | next >

  • Judgment 4799


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests, firstly, the decision to reassign him pursuant to the closure of his area of competence in Berlin, and to reallocate some patent files, secondly, the decision to reallocate some patent files in the context of his reassignment and, thirdly, the closure of an area of competence per se.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power, and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). The Tribunal may interfere only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5, and 3488, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240

    Keywords:

    discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4798


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the closure of an area of competence in the Berlin sub-office, and her reassignment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant further contends that the closure of the area of competence G01R in Berlin did not increase efficiency as indicated by the EPO. However, the complainant does not establish procedural or substantive errors of this decision, which is organizational in nature, and thus involved the exercise of a wide discretionary power. The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide which of the many possible restructuring options should be chosen by the Organisation.

    Keywords:

    discretion; reorganisation;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members, involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). The Tribunal may interfere only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority, or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5 and 3488, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240

    Keywords:

    discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4795


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour l’année 2018.

    Considerations 9-10

    Extract:

    Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a maintes fois affirmé dans sa jurisprudence, 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 4564, au considérant 3, 4267, au considérant 4, 3692, au considérant 8, 3228, au considérant 3, ou 3062, au considérant 3).
    Parmi les divers moyens articulés par le requérant […], il en est un qui, […] puisqu’il consiste à invoquer l’omission d’un fait essentiel, s’avère déterminant pour trancher le présent litige. Il s’agit de celui tiré de ce que le Président des chambres de recours a refusé de tenir compte du caractère insuffisant, au regard de la réalité des besoins observés, de la décharge de fonctions de 50 pour cent dont l’intéressé bénéficiait, en tant que membre titulaire du CCP, en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l’article 3 de la circulaire no 356 relative aux ressources et facilités mises à la disposition du Comité du personnel.

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4794


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation de 2016.

    Considerations 10 & 12

    Extract:

    [L]e mandat étroit de la Commission d’évaluation à cet égard ne limite pas l’étendue de la mission juridictionnelle du Tribunal dans ce domaine. Il convient de rappeler que le Tribunal n’exerce en matière d’évaluation des fonctionnaires qu’un contrôle restreint. Dans le jugement 4564, au considérant 3, le Tribunal a rappelé ce qui suit à ce sujet:
    «[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 de notation 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. S’agissant de la notation des fonctionnaires de l’OEB, ces limites s’imposent d’autant plus au Tribunal que l’Office prévoit une procédure de conciliation en la matière et que le Statut des fonctionnaires confère aux agents le droit de recourir à une commission [...]»
    Dès lors que le Tribunal n’a pas qualité pour substituer sa propre appréciation à celle formulée par les personnes ou organes chargés de procéder aux évaluations des mérites d’un fonctionnaire, la circonstance que le contrôle de la Commission d’évaluation soit lui-même limité au caractère arbitraire ou discriminatoire d’un rapport d’évaluation ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Tribunal, qui continue à être exercé dans les mêmes conditions qu’auparavant.
    […]
    [L]’exercice que le requérant invite le Tribunal à effectuer au sujet de l’appréciation de sa productivité et de son évaluation générale se veut en réalité une réévaluation de sa performance pour l’année 2016. Mais c’est là méconnaître le rôle du Tribunal en la matière au regard du contrôle limité qu’il est appelé à exercer aux termes de sa jurisprudence constante (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4564, précité, au considérant 3, lui-même cité dans le jugement 4637, précité, au considérant 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4779


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: La requérante conteste sa révocation pour fautes disciplinaires.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, l’autorité investie du pouvoir disciplinaire au sein d’une organisation internationale dispose d’un pouvoir d’appréciation quant au choix de la sanction à infliger à l’un de ses fonctionnaires à raison d’une faute commise par ce dernier. Sa décision doit cependant, dans tous les cas, respecter le principe de proportionnalité qui s’impose en la matière (voir notamment les jugements 4400, au considérant 29, 3944, au considérant 12, 3927, au considérant 13, et 3640, au considérant 29).
    En l’espèce, le Tribunal estime que les fraudes évoquées au considérant 15 ci-dessus constituent, même si elles portaient en l’occurrence sur des montants relativement modestes, de graves manquements au devoir d’intégrité assigné à tout membre du personnel d’une organisation internationale. En outre, la violation répétée d’obligations privées par ailleurs commise par la requérante était de nature, ainsi qu’il a été dit au considérant 13, à porter atteinte à la dignité du statut de fonctionnaire international et à la réputation de l’UIT. Comme le soulignait à juste titre la décision du 30 juillet 2021, le fait que la requérante était affectée au Département de la gestion des ressources humaines constitue une circonstance aggravante de ces fautes, car il est normalement attendu des agents de ce département qu’ils se montrent particulièrement scrupuleux quant au respect de la déontologie des fonctionnaires de l’organisation. Enfin, si les difficultés d’ordre personnel évoquées plus haut peuvent certes être considérées comme une circonstance atténuante, elles ne suffisent cependant pas à retirer aux faits en cause leur caractère de gravité.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4400

    Keywords:

    aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;



  • Judgment 4777


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Le requérant conteste le calcul de sa rémunération et la détermination de son échelon à la suite de sa promotion du grade G.6 au grade P.3.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [I]l ressort également d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que le chef exécutif d'une organisation jouit d’un large pouvoir d’appréciation en matière de nomination et de promotion des membres du personnel et que, pour cette raison, les décisions qu’il prend dans ce domaine ne peuvent faire l’objet que d’un contrôle limité de la part du Tribunal. Ainsi, celui-ci ne censurera une telle décision que si elle émane d’une autorité incompétente, viole 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 entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4552, au considérant 2, 4451, au considérant 6, et 3742, au considérant 3). Cette jurisprudence trouve à s’appliquer y compris dans le cas particulier où, comme en l’espèce, l’objet de la décision litigieuse est de déterminer s’il est opportun ou non de revenir sur l’octroi d’une promotion au bénéfice du fonctionnaire qui s’en estime dorénavant insatisfait. Or, le requérant se borne en réalité sur ce point à inviter le Tribunal à substituer son évaluation à celle du Secrétaire général quant à la question de savoir s’il y avait lieu de revenir ou non sur la promotion dont l’intéressé a bénéficié, ce qui méconnaît les limites du contrôle restreint que peut exercer celui-ci dans un tel cas.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3742, 4451, 4552

    Keywords:

    appointment; discretion; judicial review; promotion;



  • Judgment 4767


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: La requérante demande à bénéficier d’une indemnité compensatoire visant à neutraliser les pertes financières subies en raison d’une réorganisation de services.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [L]e Tribunal rappelle tout d’abord qu’il est bien établi dans sa jurisprudence que les décisions relatives à une restructuration des services au sein d’une organisation internationale, y compris en matière de suppression de poste, relèvent du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peuvent faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint. Ainsi, le Tribunal se limitera à vérifier si ces décisions sont prises dans le respect des règles de compétence, de forme ou de procédure, si elles ne reposent pas sur une erreur de fait ou de droit, ou si elles ne sont pas entachées de détournement de pouvoir. Il ne se prononcera pas sur le bien-fondé d’une restructuration ou des décisions individuelles y relatives, tout comme il ne substituera pas sa propre appréciation à celle de l’organisation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4608, au considérant 7, 4503, au considérant 11, et 4405, au considérant 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4766


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: La requérante demande à bénéficier d’une indemnité compensatoire visant à neutraliser les pertes financières subies en raison d’une réorganisation de services.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [L]e Tribunal rappelle tout d’abord qu’il est bien établi dans sa jurisprudence que les décisions relatives à une restructuration des services au sein d’une organisation internationale, y compris en matière de suppression de poste, relèvent du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peuvent faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint. Ainsi, le Tribunal se limitera à vérifier si ces décisions sont prises dans le respect des règles de compétence, de forme ou de procédure, si elles ne reposent pas sur une erreur de fait ou de droit, ou si elles ne sont pas entachées de détournement de pouvoir. Il ne se prononcera pas sur le bien-fondé d’une restructuration ou des décisions individuelles y relatives, tout comme il ne substituera pas sa propre appréciation à celle de l’organisation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4608, au considérant 7, 4503, au considérant 11, et 4405, au considérant 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4750


    137th Session, 2024
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de la licencier pour absence non autorisée et abandon de poste.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Si, comme elle l’observe, la requérante était […] en droit de solliciter un congé spécial sans traitement, l’octroi d’un tel congé n’est cependant pas constitutif d’un droit qui lui serait ouvert d’office, mais relève, au contraire, d’une décision d’appréciation du Greffier de la CPI. Compte tenu de la liberté d’appréciation reconnue à une organisation internationale pour prendre une telle décision, celle-ci ne peut faire l’objet que d’un contrôle limité de la part du Tribunal et ne peut être annulée que si elle a été prise par une autorité incompétente, est entachée d’un vice de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte des faits essentiels, s’il a été tiré du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées ou si un détournement de pouvoir a été commis (voir, notamment, le jugement 4101, au considérant 8, et la jurisprudence citée).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; special leave;



  • Judgment 4745


    137th Session, 2024
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    It is […] appropriate to recall the Tribunal’s well-settled case law on disciplinary decisions. Such decisions fall within the discretionary authority of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal must determine whether or not a discretionary decision was taken with authority, was in regular form, whether the correct procedure was followed and, as regards its legality under the organization’s own rules, whether the organization’s decision was based on an error of law or fact, or whether essential facts had not been taken into consideration, or whether conclusions which are clearly false had been drawn from the documents in the file, or finally, whether there was a misuse of authority. Additionally, the Tribunal shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4579, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4579

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; discretion; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4726


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    As the complainant purports to challenge the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4725


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    As the complainant purports to challenge the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4724


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It is convenient for the Tribunal to recall the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4723


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It is convenient for the Tribunal to recall the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4721


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    As the complainant purports to challenge the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4720


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    Regarding the complainant’s challenge to the substance of his 2015 appraisal report, it is convenient for the Tribunal to recall the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4719


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    Regarding the complainant’s challenge to the substantive aspects of his 2015 appraisal report, it is convenient to recall the following statement which the Tribunal made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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 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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4718


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Considerations 4 & 13

    Extract:

    As the complainant challenged the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”
    [...]
    [T]he 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. Additionally, as the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining whether the report was well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s mandate is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4716


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Considerations 6 & 14

    Extract:

    Settled case law has it that supervisors enjoy wide discretion when assessing the performance of staff members and that, where a performance report is contested, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review. It will determine whether the reporting process is
    vitiated by a formal or procedural flaw, an error of law or fact; whether a material fact was overlooked; whether there was a misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; or whether there was abuse of authority. The Tribunal has also stated that, as a performance assessment is a value judgement within the discretionary authority of the bodies mandated to conduct it in accordance with the relevant rules, it will not substitute its own opinion for assessments made by these bodies. The limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the mark given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that mark in the report. This is because a performance report serves no purpose unless a supervisor has full freedom to comment on performance. The supervisor’s independence and sense of fairness being presumed, it is for the complainant to provide evidence that the staff report is flawed (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 3268, consideration 9, 3252, consideration 6, 2400, consideration 3, 2318, consideration 4, 2064, consideration 4, and 880, consideration 4). Moreover, inasmuch as the complainant was a staff representative at the material time, it is convenient to recall the Tribunal’s statement, in consideration 19 of Judgment 3084, that an organisation must ensure that a staff member is not disadvantaged on the grounds of her or his participation in staff representation activities as the principle of freedom of association is infringed if a person is subject to a detriment or disability because of her or his activities within a staff association (see also Judgments 3414, consideration 4, and 2704, consideration 6).
    [...]
    [S]upervisors enjoy wide discretion when assessing the performance of staff members and that, where a performance report is contested, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 880, 2064, 2318, 2400, 2704, 3084, 3252, 3268, 3414, 4564

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 4715


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    Regarding the complainant’s challenge to the substantive aspects of his 2014 staff report, the Tribunal finds it convenient to repeat the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
    “[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.”
    In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
    “Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637

    Keywords:

    discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;

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, 29, 30, 31 | next >


 
Last updated: 20.02.2024 ^ top