EU Law Case Analysis: T-742/15 P Judgment

A performance review (CDR) that contains biased or unfair statements.

Statements made by a manager regarding the employee's performance and potential.

Refusal to offer a promotion, possibly justified or unjustified.

Unequal attention given to the workload of different staff members.

Negative assessment as a reaction to previous discrimination complaints.

The performance review conducted in 2011.

Improper or excessive use of authority.

to provide evidence to support claims that the CDR was discriminatory.

Violation of the right to be heard during a procedure.

Cancellation of a decision due to a procedural irregularity, such as violating the right to be heard.

The final result of a procedure.

Sufficient proof to convince a court or tribunal that a decision would have been made regardless of the irregularity.

The fundamental principle that individuals involved in a decision-making process have the right to present their case and be heard before a judgment is made concerning them.

A decision made by an employer to formally criticize or reprimand an employee, often for misconduct or poor performance.

A decision by an employer to end an employee's employment contract, resulting in the employee being dismissed or fired.

The legality of a decision based on its content and whether it complies with relevant laws and regulations.

The violation or breaking of someone's legal rights.

Arguments or claims made by a party in a legal case to support their position.

A higher court which reviews decisions made by lower courts to ensure they are legal and just.

A legal penalty that is strong enough to enforce a law, fair in relation to the offense, and discourages future violations.

A legal penalty that is appropriate to the severity of the offense, not too harsh or too lenient.

A legal penalty that is intended to discourage people from committing the offense again.

This article of the directive mandates that Member States establish effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions for violations of its provisions.

The legal act of canceling or declaring void an unlawful decision or act.

Financial payment awarded to a person for intangible damages, such as emotional distress or reputational harm, caused by a violation of their rights.

The legal procedure where a party seeks to have a lower court's decision reviewed by a higher court.

An argument that is clear, logically sound, and supported by evidence, making it difficult to refute.

The administrative enquiry was initiated to determine if the appellant had breached his professional duty. This was prompted by the appellant's allegations of discrimination by Ms. B.

The appellant was accused of breaching professional duty, including allegations of discrimination against Ms. B.

The tribunal concluded that the appellant was aware of the specific accusations against him because the documents and explanations provided during the administrative enquiry were clear.

The appellant argued that the documents and explanations lacked clarity about the specific reasons for the accusations.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal falsely implied that accusations of discrimination automatically constitute a serious disciplinary offense.

The tribunal found that while the appellant may have been accused of discrimination toward Ms. B, this accusation does not automatically signify disciplinary wrongdoing.

The Tribunal focused on whether the appellant was aware of the accusations made against him, rather than determining whether the accusations were true.

The accusations against the appellant were not necessarily considered true by the tribunal, but it was important that the appellant understood the nature of the accusations against him.

Damage to a person's reputation, dignity, or mental well-being. This type of harm is often subjective and difficult to quantify.

Remedying all of the harm caused by a decision. It involves restoring a person to their original state before the harm occurred.

A significant violation of the law or regulations, making the decision invalid.

A requirement for decision-makers to explain their reasoning for their decisions. This ensures transparency and accountability.

Evaluating and measuring the extent of the damage caused by a decision. This helps determine the appropriate remedy.

Failing to consider all relevant evidence or aspects of a case. This can lead to an unfair or incorrect decision.