Motivation (669,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation
Total judgments found: 102
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4495
134th Session, 2022
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The obligation to give reasons for a non-renewal have been variously described as providing “valid reasons” (see Judgment 3769, consideration 7), and not “arbitrary or irrational” reasons (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2). While the reasons given in this case may be contestable, they were not of a character to sustain a conclusion they were, for example, not valid or arbitrary or irrational. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3586, consideration 6: “the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3586, 3769
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4473
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to recognise his son’s condition as a “serious illness” within the meaning of the provisions governing reimbursement of medical expenses.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; dependent child; health insurance; illness; insurance benefits; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is plain from Judgments 4167 and 4217, which also concern complaints of psychological harassment, that a decision is rendered unlawful by the refusal of an organisation’s executive head to disclose to the joint appeals body the report of the investigation into the harassment complaint lodged by the official concerned, or at least a redacted copy thereof. Similarly, in the aforementioned Judgment 4217, considerations 4 to 6, the Tribunal points out that, according to settled case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him. In this case, the Joint Committee for Disputes, on whose opinion the Director General states he bases his decision of 15 December 2016, was not provided with the investigation report concerned. Nor had the complainant received it by the time he was notified on 14 January 2016 that his psychological harassment complaint had been closed. In Judgment 4081, the Tribunal recalls that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the Director General neither provided information nor referred to the Committee’s reasons that would allow the complainant to understand why the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4217
Keywords:
confidentiality; final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4467
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the recruitment process and the resulting appointment for the post of Client Relationship Manager, for which he had applied.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The case law states, in consideration 5 of Judgment 4081, for example, that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and, in particular, the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. However, the Tribunal has also stated, in consideration 4 of Judgment 2978, that when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly when the Administration chooses between candidates, the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision. These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of a procedure arising from a challenge to the selection process […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4081
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
Judgment 4455
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]here is an anterior issue, namely whether the complainant was provided with adequate reasons for the decision to suspend her with pay bearing in mind that suspension is a matter of some gravity (see Judgment 3496, consideration 2). As noted earlier, one relevant question arising under Staff Rule 29(1) for which reasons should be provided at least in case such as the present, is why the decision-maker (the Secretary-General) concluded that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. Ordinarily the other question arising under Staff Rule 29(1), whether it is a case that appears to call for a sanction, can readily be answered by reference to the actual or pending charges and the then known or alleged facts. Generally, the source of those reasons can be a document other than the document communicating the decision and indeed can be what an official is told at a meeting (see, for example, Judgment 4037, consideration 7, and Judgment 3914, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3496, 3914, 4037
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; suspension;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that a transfer decision satisfies the requirements laid down in its case law concerning the statement of reasons when, in particular, the staff member was given explanations enabling her or him to comment on the new duties in detail and in full knowledge of the facts before the decision was taken (see Judgment 3662, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal considers that, just as the requisite statement of reasons may be contained in the notification informing the staff member of the decision or any other document, the reasons may also be provided in prior proceedings, or orally (see, inter alia, Judgments 1590, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 4397, consideration 15), or may even be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 1590, consideration 7, and 3316, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316, 3662, 4397
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; transfer;
Judgment 4437
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post following her transfer.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Precedent has it that any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds (see, for example, Judgment 4108, consideration 3). Furthermore, under settled case law, the executive head of an international organisation, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, 3830, considerations 6 and 8, or 4062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830, 4062, 4108
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The rationale for fully and adequately motivating the final decision on an internal appeal was relevantly stated as follows, in consideration 9 of Judgment 3727:
“It is not sufficient to explain why, in the opinion of the executive head of the organisation, the internal appeal body approached an issue in a way that was flawed. It is also necessary to explain the basis on which the conclusion actually reached by the executive head of the organisation was arrived at if it was different to the conclusion of the internal appeal body [...] In the present case, it was necessary for the Secretary General not simply to identify perceived flaws in the reasoning or procedures of the Commission said to undermine its conclusion that the post had evolved but, in addition, to explain his reasons for the conclusion that the post had been “cut”. This leads to consideration of whether, in all the circumstances, the impugned decision sufficiently explained this latter conclusion.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3727
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants contend that the impugned decisions contain no reasoning and solely relied on the Appeals Committee’s opinion which is not acceptable and biased. The Tribunal’s case law has it that a final decision may accept the opinion or recommendations of an internal appeal body without further analysis (see, for example, Judgment 3994, consideration 12), but must be motivated if it rejects the opinion and recommendations (see Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). Accordingly, the fact that the impugned decisions merely accepted the Appeals Committee’s reasoning does not vitiate those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal relevantly restated in Judgment 3586, consideration 16, that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him, and that, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. Such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers. Additionally, the Tribunal reiterated, in consideration 17 of that judgment, its consistent case law that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all the materials an adjudicating body uses in an internal appeal and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
confidentiality; due process; evidence; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4400
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[W]hile it is true that under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 3208, consideration 11, or 4062, consideration 3), such a decision cannot be expected to address all the points raised by the appeals body in its opinion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 3208, 4062
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Given the inaccuracy in the reasons given for not promoting the complainant, which also means that the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary manner, the […] impugned decision is flawed and will be set aside (see, for example, Judgment 3647, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3647
Keywords:
decision quashed; discretion; mistake of fact; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4379
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administration’s refusal to provide him in a timely manner with unredacted copies of documents and records relied upon by the Internal Oversight Services during the disciplinary investigation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s reliance on Judgment 4167, consideration 4, in support of his assertion that the Director-General violated his duty to motivate his departure from the GBA’s findings is misplaced. As stated in this judgment, consideration 4, “an executive head of an international organisation who departs from a recommendation of an internal appeal body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached”. This case law only has application when an authority competent to make a final decision departs from the internal appeal body’s recommendation. As the Director-General accepted the GBA’s recommendation in its entirety, there was no alternative decision that required motivation. Accordingly, the complainant’s submission that the impugned decision was “not properly motivated” is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167
Keywords:
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4373
131st Session, 2021
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 10
Extract:
A final decision maker can refer to other documents which, when taken together with such reasons for decision as are given by the decision maker, can constitute the reasons for decision (see, for example, Judgment 4081, consideration 5). But the Tribunal’s approach is influenced by the circumstances and the nature of the decision (see Judgment 2927, consideration 7), and the Tribunal does not recognise the aggregation of reasons from multiple sources is appropriate in relation to disciplinary decisions (see Judgment 2112, consideration 5). The Director-General did not adequately motivate his decision to censure the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned decision […] should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2112, 2927, 4081
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The main purpose of the statement of reasons for an administrative decision is precisely to enable the staff member concerned to know the reasons for that decision so that she or he can decide whether to exercise her or his right of appeal (see, for example, Judgments 1817, consideration 6, 3117, consideration 9, 3617, consideration 5, or 3914, consideration 15). Thus, while it is true that the Tribunal’s case law accepts that the reasons for a decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself and can be contained in other documents, this is plainly on the condition that those documents are also communicated to the official concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2112, consideration 5, 2927, consideration 7, or 4081, consideration 5).
Since the IOC did not comply with this requirement, the complainant’s right of appeal was breached, and the fact that the complainant was provided with the [...] note in these proceedings could not, in the Tribunal’s view, suffice to rectify the effects of that breach in this case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 2112, 2927, 3117, 3617, 3914, 4081
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4360
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
Because the Prosecutor rejected the findings and recommendations of the Board, she was obliged to motivate her conclusion and address not only the relevant inculpatory evidence pointing to guilt but also the relevant exculpatory evidence pointing to innocence, including the alibi evidence. She failed to do so [...].
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; final decision; motivation;
Judgment 4342
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the position of Deputy General Counsel.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The report of the Board contains one further error involving the broad generalisation that there is a “broad discretionary power that the Administration retains in procedures leading to appointments at the highest levels of the Organization”. It is true that the Tribunal has consistently emphasised the broad discretionary power of an organisation to appoint a person to a position and all the more so if it is a senior position (see, for example, Judgments 4208, consideration 2, and 2897, consideration 5). But in his brief submitted to the Board, the complainant made a number of quite specific complaints in support of his statement of appeal about the procedure followed referring, in particular, either to an Information Circular specifying temporary measures to fill positions through vacancy announcements or to the staff recruitment and appointment procedures in the Human Resources Implementing Procedures (HRIP). The reply of IFAD in the internal appeal contained the overarching argument that “the applicable rules and procedures governing the selection appointment of staff members, as set out in the Human Resources Policy, the Staff Rules, the HRIP and other applicable IFAD instruments, were fully complied with”. It may be that, properly construed, the provisions relied upon by the complainant either did not apply or had been satisfied. But it is not an adequate answer simply to say there is flexibility about procedure in relation to the filling of senior positions. The arguments had to be addressed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2897, 4208
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4341
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for the position of General Counsel.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
The complainant argues that the recommendation of the Board was based on grossly inadequate reasoning, referring to Judgment 3995, consideration 4. The Tribunal accepts this is correct. It is to be recalled that the Board said it would not consider the complainant’s case on the merits because he had participated willingly and without objection in the selection process along the way. This led the Board to conclude, for no discernible reason, the complainant did not have a legally protected interest in the matter. The case law of the Tribunal repeatedly establishes that a staff member who has been unsuccessful in a competition has the legal right to challenge the lawfulness of the competition (see Judgments 1832, consideration 3(b)(2), and 3449, consideration 2) and internal appeals bodies have a corresponding duty to consider the challenge (see, for example, Judgment 3590, consideration 2). [...]
Moreover the fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to shortlist the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.
The approach of the Board involved an error of law and its effective adoption by the President is tainted by the same error (see Judgment 3490, consideration 18). IFAD defends the President’s approach by saying firstly, he had no power to refer the matter back to the Board and secondly and in any event the President “appraised the [Board]’s Report and recommendations in light of all the documentation he had at his disposal in relation to the [c]omplainant’s appeal”. If the President did not have power to refer the matter back to the Board, he had an obligation to motivate his decision to dismiss the appeal in the face of no motivation of substance from the Board itself. The President did not do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3449, 3490, 3590, 3876, 3995
Keywords:
cause of action; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 19
Extract:
In Judgment 4164, addressing a similar argument, the Tribunal stated the following, at consideration 13: “The Tribunal has consistently stated that when the executive head of an organisation adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself.” The following was also stated in Judgment 3184, consideration 10:
“The case law has consistently provided that ‘[t]here is a duty to explain a decision or a conclusion because everyone concerned has to know the reasons for it [...] [b]ut the duty will be discharged even if the reasons are stated in some other text to which there is express or even implied reference, for example where a higher authority endorses the reasoning of a lower one or a recommendation by some advisory body’ (see in particular Judgment 1673, under 6). Consequently, the Director-General, in his final decision, was not required to provide a detailed reply to each of the objections raised by the complainant. He merely had to state reasons for adopting or rejecting the recommendation of the advisory body and the reason on which the original decision was based.”
In the present case, the Director General endorsed the Appeals Committee’s opinion, which recommended that he dismiss the appeal in its entirety, and was based on its findings (section IV of the opinion) which are concise and specific, as well as the findings of the Internal Auditor and the OIOS investigations. The Tribunal concludes that the duty to motivate the Appeals Committee’s opinion and the final decision has been fulfilled.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1673, 3184, 4164
Keywords:
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4283
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that insufficient reasons were given for the decision [challenged]. He contends that in stating that the decision to cancel the competition had been taken owing to “business needs”, the author of that decision had used an “empty formula, devoid of meaning, justification and foundation”.
However, although the Tribunal’s case law does not regard generic references of that kind as sufficient to provide the reasons for an administrative decision (see Judgments 1231, under 23, 3617, under 6, or 4259, under 12), an examination of the impugned decision in this case shows that, far from merely referring in an abstract manner to the interests of the service, it contains a detailed statement of the reasons for which it was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231, 3617, 4259
Keywords:
interest of the service; motivation; motivation of final decision;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
