L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies

Plan du site \| Contact	English

	> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du th�saurus

R�le du Tribunal (925,-666)

Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: R�le du Tribunal
Jugements trouvés: 66

1, 2, 3, 4 | suivant >

Jugement 4795

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: Le requ�rant conteste son rapport d��valuation pour l�ann�e 2018.

Consid�rant 14

Extrait:

Le requ�rant demande que lui soit attribu�e la �note moyenne �atteint les objectifs�� [...].
Il n�appartient pas au Tribunal, qui n�a aucunement vocation � se substituer aux autorit�s investies du pouvoir de notation au sein d�une organisation internationale, de d�terminer lui-m�me une note devant �tre attribu�e � un fonctionnaire dans le cadre d�un rapport d��valuation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4564, au consid�rant 2, ou 4258, aux consid�rants 2 et 3).

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4258, 4564

Mots-clés:

Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4794

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: Le requ�rant conteste son rapport d��valuation de 2016.

Consid�rants 10 et 12

Extrait:

[L]e mandat �troit de la Commission d��valuation � cet �gard ne limite pas l��tendue de la mission juridictionnelle du Tribunal dans ce domaine. Il convient de rappeler que le Tribunal n�exerce en mati�re d��valuation des fonctionnaires qu�un contr�le restreint. Dans le jugement 4564, au consid�rant 3, le Tribunal a rappel� ce qui suit � ce sujet:
�[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 de notation 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. S�agissant de la notation des fonctionnaires de l�OEB, ces limites s�imposent d�autant plus au Tribunal que l�Office pr�voit une proc�dure de conciliation en la mati�re et que le Statut des fonctionnaires conf�re aux agents le droit de recourir � une commission [...]�
D�s lors que le Tribunal n�a pas qualit� pour substituer sa propre appr�ciation � celle formul�e par les personnes ou organes charg�s de proc�der aux �valuations des m�rites d�un fonctionnaire, la circonstance que le contr�le de la Commission d��valuation soit lui-m�me limit� au caract�re arbitraire ou discriminatoire d�un rapport d��valuation ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Tribunal, qui continue � �tre exerc� dans les m�mes conditions qu�auparavant.
[�]
[L]�exercice que le requ�rant invite le Tribunal � effectuer au sujet de l�appr�ciation de sa productivit� et de son �valuation g�n�rale se veut en r�alit� une r��valuation de sa performance pour l�ann�e 2016. Mais c�est l� m�conna�tre le r�le du Tribunal en la mati�re au regard du contr�le limit� qu�il est appel� � exercer aux termes de sa jurisprudence constante (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4564, pr�cit�, au consid�rant 3, lui-m�me cit� dans le jugement 4637, pr�cit�, au consid�rant 13).

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637

Mots-clés:

Notation; Pouvoir d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4793

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rant 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.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4792

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rants 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 [�].

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4791

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rants 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.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4790

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rants 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.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4789

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rant 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.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4788

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rants 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.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4257, 4564, 4718, 4719, 4720

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4787

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rants 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).

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4786

137e session, 2024
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

Consid�rants 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.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564

Mots-clés:

Contr�le du Tribunal; Evaluation; Notation; Rapport d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4761

137e session, 2024
Organisation mondiale de la sant�
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: Le requ�rant conteste le refus de l�OMS de reconna�tre l�imputabilit� au service de la maladie dont il d�clare �tre atteint.

Consid�rant 2

Extrait:

D�s lors qu�il s�agit [�] de se pencher sur une question d�ordre m�dical, le Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, il n�a pas qualit� pour substituer sa propre appr�ciation � celles qui ont �t� formul�es par des experts m�dicaux, �tant toutefois entendu qu�il est pleinement comp�tent pour appr�cier la r�gularit� de la proc�dure suivie et pour examiner si les rapports m�dicaux qui servent de fondement � des d�cisions administratives sont entach�s d�erreur mat�rielle ou de contradiction, n�gligent des faits essentiels ou tirent du dossier des conclusions manifestement erron�es (voir, notamment, les jugements 4699, au consid�rant 6, 4694, au consid�rant 11, 4464, au consid�rant 7, 3994, au consid�rant 5, et 3361, au consid�rant 8).

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3361, 3994, 4464, 4694, 4699

Mots-clés:

Avis m�dical; Contr�le du Tribunal; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4754

137e session, 2024
Agence internationale de l'�nergie atomique
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant impugns the decision to close his harassment complaint.

Consid�rant 5

Extrait:

It should be observed [...] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
�Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, �it is not the Tribunal�s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)� (see Judgment 3757, under 6).�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674

Mots-clés:

D�f�rence; Organe d'enqu�te; Preuves pendant l'enqu�te; R�le du Tribunal;

Mots-cl�s du jugement

Mots-clés:

D�f�rence; Enqu�te; Harc�lement; Organe d'enqu�te; Requ�te rejet�e; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4753

137e session, 2024
Agence internationale de l'�nergie atomique
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.

Consid�rant 10

Extrait:

It should be observed [�] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
�Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, �it is not the Tribunal�s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)� (see Judgment 3757, under 6).�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674

Mots-clés:

D�f�rence; Organe d'enqu�te; Preuves pendant l'enqu�te; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4745

137e session, 2024
Organisation internationale pour les migrations
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.

Consid�rant 5

Extrait:

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).

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4579

Mots-clés:

Pouvoir d'appr�ciation; Proc�dure disciplinaire; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4731

136e session, 2023
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: La requ�rante conteste son rapport de notation pour la p�riode 2008-2009.

Consid�rants 4-5

Extrait:

S�agissant [...] de la demande de la requ�rante visant � la r�vision de certains des commentaires contenus dans le rapport de notation final, le Tribunal rel�ve d�abord que l�int�ress�e peut difficilement avoir �t� n�gativement affect�e par ces commentaires en tant que tels, d�s lors qu�elle ne conteste pas, de toute fa�on, les notes �bien� qui lui ont finalement �t� attribu�es au titre de ces rubriques. Mais surtout, en demandant au Tribunal de revoir et de r��crire certains des commentaires formul�s dans deux des rubriques de son rapport de notation, la requ�rante se m�prend manifestement sur la nature de la mission de contr�le juridictionnel dont celui-ci est investi. En effet, il n�appartient pas au Tribunal, qui n�a aucunement vocation � se substituer aux autorit�s administratives d�une organisation internationale, de proc�der � l��valuation des m�rites d�un fonctionnaire en lieu et place du notateur comp�tent ou des diff�rents sup�rieurs hi�rarchiques et organes de recours appel�s, le cas �ch�ant, � r�viser cette �valuation (voir le jugement 4564, au consid�rant 2). En mati�re de notation des fonctionnaires, le Tribunal n�exerce qu�un contr�le restreint (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4637, au consid�rant 13, et la jurisprudence cit�e), qui ne consiste pas � r��valuer les performances de l�int�ress� (voir �galement les jugements 4258, au consid�rant 2, et 4257, au consid�rant 3). Ainsi, il ressort du consid�rant 3 du jugement 4564 que:
�[...] le Tribunal ne censurera [...] un rapport de notation 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. S�agissant de la notation des fonctionnaires de l�OEB, ces limites s�imposent d�autant plus au Tribunal que l�Office pr�voit une proc�dure de conciliation en la mati�re et que le Statut des fonctionnaires conf�re aux agents le droit de recourir � une commission paritaire compos�e de personnes ayant une connaissance directe du fonctionnement de l�Office (voir, par exemple, les jugements 1688, au consid�rant 5, 3062, au consid�rant 3, 3228, au consid�rant 3, 3268, au consid�rant 9, 3692, au consid�rant 8, ou 4258, au consid�rant 2).�
Le Tribunal a d�j� indiqu� qu�une demande de modification d�un rapport de notation qui ne satisfait pas � ces crit�res est immanquablement vou�e au rejet (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4564, au consid�rant 2, et 4258, aux consid�rants 2 et 3). Il en va de m�me d�une demande de modification qui vise non pas la note finale attribu�e dans le rapport de notation litigieux, mais la formulation des remarques et/ou commentaires qui ont servi de base � l�attribution de cette note, et ce, d�autant plus lorsque celle-ci n�est pas remise en question par le fonctionnaire concern�. Dans le jugement 3692, au consid�rant 8, le Tribunal a d�ailleurs indiqu� que la restriction � son pouvoir d�examen �vaut naturellement tant pour l�attribution d�une note dans un rapport de notation que pour les commentaires accompagnant cette note�.

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4257, 4258, 4564, 4637

Mots-clés:

Notation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4726

136e session, 2023
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: Le requ�rant conteste son rapport d��valuation pour 2015.

Consid�rant 8

Extrait:

D�s lors que le requ�rant entend contester la d�cision attaqu�e tant pour des motifs li�s � la proc�dure que sur le fond, le Tribunal rappelle ce qu�il a d�clar� dans le jugement 4564, au consid�rant 3, au sujet du contr�le restreint qu�il lui revient d�exercer en mati�re d��valuation des fonctionnaires:
�[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 de notation 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.�
Dans le jugement 4637, apr�s ce rappel, le Tribunal a ajout� ce qui suit au consid�rant 13:
�D�s lors que le contr�le du Tribunal n�inclut ainsi pas une v�rification du bien-fond� des �valuations en tant que telle, la circonstance que le contr�le de la Commission d��valuation soit lui-m�me limit� au caract�re arbitraire ou discriminatoire d�un rapport d��valuation ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Tribunal, qui continue � �tre exerc� dans les m�mes conditions qu�auparavant.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637

Mots-clés:

Notation; Pouvoir d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4725

136e session, 2023
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: Le requ�rant conteste son rapport d��valuation pour 2015.

Consid�rant 11

Extrait:

D�s lors que le requ�rant entend contester la d�cision attaqu�e tant pour des motifs li�s � la proc�dure que sur le fond, le Tribunal rappelle ce qu�il a d�clar� dans le jugement 4564, au consid�rant 3, au sujet du contr�le restreint qu�il lui revient d�exercer en mati�re d��valuation des fonctionnaires:
�[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 de notation 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.�
Dans le jugement 4637, apr�s ce rappel, le Tribunal a ajout� ce qui suit au consid�rant 13:
�D�s lors que le contr�le du Tribunal n�inclut ainsi pas une v�rification du bien-fond� des �valuations en tant que telle, la circonstance que le contr�le de la Commission d��valuation soit lui-m�me limit� au caract�re arbitraire ou discriminatoire d�un rapport d��valuation ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Tribunal, qui continue � �tre exerc� dans les m�mes conditions qu�auparavant.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637

Mots-clés:

Notation; Pouvoir d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4724

136e session, 2023
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: La requ�rante conteste son rapport d��valuation pour 2015.

Consid�rant 2

Extrait:

Il convient pour le Tribunal de rappeler ce qu�il a d�clar� dans le jugement 4564, au consid�rant 3, au sujet du contr�le restreint qu�il lui revient d�exercer en mati�re d��valuation des fonctionnaires:
�[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 de notation 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.�
Dans le jugement 4637, apr�s ce rappel, le Tribunal a ajout� ce qui suit au consid�rant 13:
�D�s lors que le contr�le du Tribunal n�inclut ainsi pas une v�rification du bien-fond� des �valuations en tant que telle, la circonstance que le contr�le de la Commission d��valuation soit lui-m�me limit� au caract�re arbitraire ou discriminatoire d�un rapport d��valuation ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Tribunal, qui continue � �tre exerc� dans les m�mes conditions qu�auparavant.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637

Mots-clés:

Notation; Pouvoir d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4723

136e session, 2023
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: Le requ�rant conteste son rapport d��valuation pour 2015.

Consid�rant 2

Extrait:

Il convient pour le Tribunal de rappeler ce qu�il a d�clar� dans le jugement 4564, au consid�rant 3, au sujet du contr�le restreint qu�il lui revient d�exercer en mati�re d��valuation des fonctionnaires:
�[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 de notation 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.�
Dans le jugement 4637, apr�s ce rappel, le Tribunal a ajout� ce qui suit au consid�rant 13:
�D�s lors que le contr�le du Tribunal n�inclut ainsi pas une v�rification du bien-fond� des �valuations en tant que telle, la circonstance que le contr�le de la Commission d��valuation soit lui-m�me limit� au caract�re arbitraire ou discriminatoire d�un rapport d��valuation ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Tribunal, qui continue � �tre exerc� dans les m�mes conditions qu�auparavant.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637

Mots-clés:

Notation; Pouvoir d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;
Jugement 4721

136e session, 2023
Organisation europ�enne des brevets
Extraits: EN, FR
Texte Int�gral Du Jugement: EN, FR
Synth�se: La requ�rante conteste son rapport d��valuation pour 2015.

Consid�rant 8

Extrait:

D�s lors que la requ�rante entend contester la d�cision attaqu�e tant pour des motifs de proc�dure que de fond, le Tribunal rappelle ce qu�il a d�clar� dans le jugement 4564, au consid�rant 3, au sujet du contr�le restreint qu�il lui revient d�exercer en mati�re d��valuation des fonctionnaires:
�[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 de notation 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.�
Dans le jugement 4637, apr�s ce rappel, le Tribunal a ajout� ce qui suit au consid�rant 13:
�D�s lors que le contr�le du Tribunal n�inclut ainsi pas une v�rification du bien-fond� des �valuations en tant que telle, la circonstance que le contr�le de la Commission d��valuation soit lui-m�me limit� au caract�re arbitraire ou discriminatoire d�un rapport d��valuation ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Tribunal, qui continue � �tre exerc� dans les m�mes conditions qu�auparavant.�

R�f�rence(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4637

Mots-clés:

Notation; Pouvoir d'appr�ciation; R�le du Tribunal;

1, 2, 3, 4 | suivant >

Dernière mise � jour: 12.04.2024

^ haut

R�le du Tribunal (925,-666)

Jugement 4795

Consid�rant 14

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4794

Consid�rants 10 et 12

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4793

Consid�rant 5

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4792

Consid�rants 3 et 11

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4791

Consid�rants 4 et 8

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4790

Consid�rants 2 et 7

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4789

Consid�rant 6

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4788

Consid�rants 4 et 7

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4787

Consid�rants 1, 5, 7 et 8

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4786

Consid�rants 1 et 4

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4761

Consid�rant 2

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4754

Consid�rant 5

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Mots-cl�s du jugement

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4753

Consid�rant 10

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4745

Consid�rant 5

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4731

Consid�rants 4-5

Extrait:

R�f�rence(s)

Mots-clés:

Jugement 4726

Consid�rant 8