Rapport d'appréciation (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)
Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: Rapport d'appréciation
Jugements trouvés: 177
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | suivant >
Jugement 4795
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour l’année 2018.
Considérant 7
Extrait:
[L]e Tribunal a déjà eu l’occasion de juger, à propos de la procédure d’objection applicable en matière d’évaluation des autres fonctionnaires de l’Office, qui a, mutatis mutandis, les mêmes caractéristiques, que le fait que la Commission d’évaluation compétente pour connaître des rapports d’évaluation de ces autres fonctionnaires ne comporte pas de représentant du personnel ne rendait pas sa composition inadéquate et que la limitation du mandat de cette commission à la vérification de l’absence de caractère arbitraire ou discriminatoire de ces rapports était juridiquement admissible (voir les jugements 4637, aux considérants 11 et 13, et 4257, au considérant 13).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4257, 4637
Mots-clés:
Notation; Organe consultatif; Rapport d'appréciation; Représentant du personnel;
Considérants 9-10
Extrait:
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.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Notation; Pouvoir d'appréciation; Rapport d'appréciation; Représentant du personnel;
Considérant 3
Extrait:
[I]l y a lieu de relever d’emblée que, si le requérant demande que soit prononcée l’annulation [du] communiqué [2/17], la conclusion présentée à cette fin est irrecevable. En vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, une décision générale ayant vocation à servir de fondement à des actes individuels – comme c’est le cas du communiqué en cause – n’est en effet, sauf hypothèses très particulières, pas susceptible de recours et son illégalité peut seulement être invoquée, par voie d’exception, dans le cadre de la contestation de ces actes individuels eux-mêmes (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4734, au considérant 4, 4572, au considérant 3, 4278, au considérant 2, 3736, au considérant 3, ou 3628, au considérant 4). Conformément à cette même jurisprudence, le requérant est cependant recevable à soulever, ainsi qu’il le fait par ailleurs, une exception d’illégalité à l’encontre du communiqué 2/17 précité à l’appui de ses conclusions tendant à l’annulation de la décision attaquée et du rapport d’évaluation litigieux, qui font application des lignes directrices définies dans ce communiqué.
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Mots-clés:
Conclusions; Décision générale; Décision individuelle; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 7
Extrait:
[S]i le requérant fait valoir que les délais prescrits par le [communiqué 2/17] pour présenter des observations sur l’avis émis […] et pour formuler une objection contre le rapport d’évaluation, soit dix jours dans les deux cas, seraient excessivement courts, le Tribunal estime que la brièveté de ces délais, […] n’est cependant pas telle que le principe du droit à un recours effectif ou celui du droit à une procédure régulière s’en trouveraient méconnus.
Mots-clés:
Droit de recours; Délai; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation;
Considérant 15
Extrait:
[C]ette évaluation comportait des observations péjoratives à l’égard du requérant […], qui étaient susceptibles de porter atteinte à sa réputation professionnelle et ont manifestement heurté sa sensibilité. Ces observations lui ont ainsi occasionné un certain tort moral.
Mots-clés:
Rapport d'appréciation; Tort moral;
Considérant 14
Extrait:
Le requérant demande que lui soit attribuée la «note moyenne “atteint les objectifs”» [...]. Il n’appartient pas au Tribunal, qui n’a aucunement vocation à se substituer aux autorités investies du pouvoir de notation au sein d’une organisation internationale, de déterminer lui-même une note devant être attribuée à un fonctionnaire dans le cadre d’un rapport d’évaluation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4564, au considérant 2, ou 4258, aux considérants 2 et 3).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4258, 4564
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête admise;
Jugement 4794
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation de 2016.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4793
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Considérant 5
Extrait:
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.”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4792
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considérants 3 et 11
Extrait:
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 […].
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4791
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Considérants 4 et 8
Extrait:
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.”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4790
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Considérants 2 et 7
Extrait:
The complainant’s request in item (2) 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.”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4789
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Considérant 6
Extrait:
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.”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Jugement 4788
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considérants 4 et 7
Extrait:
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.”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4257, 4564, 4718, 4719, 4720
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4787
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Considérants 1, 5, 7 et 8
Extrait:
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.” […] [T]he 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).
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4786
137e session, 2024
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Considérants 1 et 4
Extrait:
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.”
Référence(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564
Mots-clés:
Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4731
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport de notation pour la période 2008-2009.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4726
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4725
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4724
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête admise;
Jugement 4723
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête admise;
Jugement 4721
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: La requérante conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4720
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4719
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4718
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport d’évaluation pour 2015.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
Jugement 4717
136e session, 2023
Organisation européenne des brevets
Extraits: EN,
FR
Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN,
FR
Synthèse: Le requérant conteste son rapport de notation pour 2014.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés:
Notation; Rapport d'appréciation; Requête rejetée;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | suivant >
|