Motivation (669,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation
Total judgments found: 102
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4276
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisal under the new merit recognition system established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Organization merely repeats that the Head of Department’s decision not to endorse the Group Leader’s proposal that the complainant’s performance be qualified as “strong” resulted from a comparison with other principal staff members. However, the Organization’s submissions do not contain any information that would allow the Tribunal to understand what factors were taken into consideration in that comparison and how it was performed in this particular case. In the absence of such information, the Tribunal finds that insufficient reasons were given for the decision.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4273
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 28
Extract:
[I]t is true that the statements that the procedures were transparent, foreseeable and documented and that the procedures in force were complied with are, on their own, overly broad formulations which do not fulfil the duty to state reasons.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4259
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The President stated that he did not consider the prolongation justified “after weighing all relevant aspects and with due respect to the Office’s prevailing general interest of [the] service”. It is not clear from the impugned decision or from any document which the EPO presents what the “relevant aspects” are. The EPO does not explain it and the Tribunal does not discern a nexus between any aspects of the proposed structural reform of the Boards of Appeal contained in document CA/16/15 and the President’s decision not to propose the prolongation of the complainant’s appointment to the Administrative Council. Moreover, there is no indication as to what the Office’s prevailing general interest of the service in rejecting the complainant’s request for prolongation of his appointment was. Merely repeating that phrase in similar terms to the formulation in Article 54(1)(b) was insufficient. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the President’s decision not to propose the prolongation of the complainant’s appointment to the Administrative Council and rejecting the request was irregular.
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The duty to provide reasons for an administrative decision that adversely affects an official is a fundamental requirement in international civil service law and the Tribunal’s case law requires such a decision to be motivated in order for the official to know the basis on which it was taken and to facilitate her or him to formulate an appeal from the decision if necessary. However, the Tribunal has accepted that the reasons for a decision may be provided in response to a subsequent challenge of the decision (see, for example, Judgment 3662, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3662
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4228
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for compensation for loss of earnings allegedly caused by a service-incurred injury.
Consideration 6
Extract:
With regard to the failure to disclose the internal documentation, the Tribunal finds that the complainant was informed of the ACCC’s recommendation in the letter dated 2 December 2014 in which the Director-General’s decision to reject his claim was communicated to him. There was no breach of any due process rights as the complainant was informed of the substance of the ACCC’s recommendation, as well as the Director-General’s final decision. The complainant was provided with sufficient elements to understand the reasoning for rejecting his claim and to exercise his right of appeal.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4220
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the rejection of their requests for an agreed separation.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainants’ assertion that they would not have had to be replaced, as evidenced by the fact that most of them were not replaced after their retirement, is unconvincing. Their normally scheduled retirements would naturally give the Organization time to prepare and reorganize the work the complainants were doing, but it does not follow that the ICTP would be equally ready for the simultaneous early separation of six staff members. It is credible that the Organization thought that it might need to hire people to replace them at that time.
Keywords:
agreed termination; motivation;
Judgment 4213
129th Session, 2020
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claims of harassment and constructive dismissal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; motivation;
Judgment 4169
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance report for the 2008-2009 biennium and the decision to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2011.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in the presentation of the parties’ arguments, but after having noted that “the [complainant] [...] makes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] report”, the Appeals Board merely stated that “the statements of the [complainant]’s supervisors, her own statement and that of her Counsel [...] before the Reports Board” were taken into account. This sweeping generalisation does not allow the Tribunal to understand the reasons for which the complainant’s allegations concerning the attitude of her supervisor [...] were accepted or dismissed, and to what extent, if at all. Since the Appeals Board did not respond to the complainant’s allegations, it is impossible to determine whether the Board gave due consideration to the question [...].
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation;
Judgment 4167
128th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, in accordance with its case law, 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 (see Judgments 3908, consideration 3, and 3863, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863, 3908
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4165
128th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay her certain entitlements upon separation from service.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that the Appeals Council’s report, which recommended that the complainant’s internal appeal be dismissed as the applicable rules had been respected and that the decision of 24 February 2015 was made to best represent the facts, was succinct. However, the opinion of the Council and the impugned decision provided sufficient bases in themselves and by reference to other texts to enable the complainant to challenge the decision and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review (see Judgments 3184, under 10, and 3772, under 10 and 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184, 3772
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4164
128th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting his request to reclassify his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is well established by the case law that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the staff member concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; that they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review, and that how extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 13
Extract:
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.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4147
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to retain his candidature for a post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that when the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself (see Judgment 2092, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4108
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds.
Keywords:
decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he Director of the Centre was not obliged to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry. Paragraph 22 of Circular No. 13/2009 expressly provides that the Director may close the file “if the accusations of the alleged victim are insufficiently well founded”. In that case, her only obligation was to respond point by point to the complainant’s allegations. Considering the nature of the allegations and the answers given, the Director was not required to provide any further justification to the complainant (see Judgment 3149, consideration 17). The sole purpose of the preliminary assessment of such a complaint is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation (see Judgment 3640, consideration 5). In the absence of a contrary provision, the adversarial principle did not need to be applied at this preliminary stage of the procedure for opening a harassment investigation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3149, 3640
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; investigation; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4081
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, 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. How extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see Judgments 1817, consideration 6, and 3617, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3617
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the case law, the reasons for a decision need not be stated in the decision itself, but may be contained in other documents communicated to the staff member concerned; they may even be set forth in briefs or submissions produced for the first time before the Tribunal, provided that the complainant’s right of appeal is fully respected (see, for example, Judgments 1289, consideration 9, 1817, consideration 6, 2112, consideration 5, or 2927, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; motivation of final decision; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 4062
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that 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, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, or 3830, considerations 6 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4060
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the affected staff member must be given reasons in support of any adverse administrative decision (see, for example, Judgments 2124, under 3, 3041, under 9, and 3617, under 5). As stated recently in Judgment 3903, under 21, the rationale underlying the obligation to give reasons is to safeguard the staff member’s rights, which requires, among other things, that “the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested” (see Judgment 2124, under 4). Implicit in this statement is that the evaluation as to whether the decision should be contested involves a consideration of whether, having regard to the nature of the decision, there are other options to explore short of initiating the internal appeal process. For example, to state a few, the staff member may wish to initiate a discussion regarding remedial action that she or he could take, if warranted, or pursue informal or formal mediation. Particularly, in cases such as the present case, the adequacy of the reasons is critical and requires sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible reasons. Based on the considerations below, the Tribunal finds that the reasons given to the complainant were not adequate.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2124, 3041, 3617, 3903
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 18
Extract:
The ICC’s failure to provide the complainant with adequate reasons for the 12 June 2014 decision constitutes a breach of the complainant’s due process rights and, accordingly, the decision is unlawful. This would warrant an order setting aside the decision, however, as noted above, such an order is unnecessary as the decision is no longer in force. The complainant is nonetheless entitled to moral damages for the breach of his due process rights.
Keywords:
damages; due process; duty to substantiate decision; moral injury; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4058
127th Session, 2019
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Disciplinary Committee found no misconduct and recommended no sanction. In the decision of [...], the Secretary General failed to explain why the Disciplinary Committee’s analysis and conclusions on both the question of guilt and the question of sanction were wrong (see Judgment 3969, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4044
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3695.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Foundational to the Tribunal’s reasoning in [Judgment 3695] was the duty of an executive head of an organisation to substantiate a final decision departing from the recommendations of an appeal committee. In that regard, the Tribunal referred to Judgments 2339, 2699 and 3208.
However, for the purpose of the present application for execution, the applicable principle was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2092, consideration 10. The Tribunal said a departure from a recommendation of an appeal committee must be explained, but also said: “[w]hen the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he [or she] is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself” (see also, for example, Judgments 2577 and 2611).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2339, 2577, 2611, 2699, 3208, 3695
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4037
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, under its case law, “[a] staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that [she or] he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given [her or] his full say.” (See Judgment 3914, under 15.)
In this case, the evidence shows that the decision of 17 August 2010 referred, albeit in a perfunctory manner, to the special measures taken by UNESCO to put short-term appointments in order and to the on-going restructuring of the sector to which the complainant was assigned. It is also evident from the file that the complainant had been informed of the Organization’s decision to appoint a programme specialist in her sector of activity. The Tribunal hence considers that the complainant was sufficiently informed of the reasons why her appointment was not renewed, as may also be inferred from her extensive comments on this matter in the aforementioned memorandum of 20 August and during the internal appeal proceedings. This plea is thus unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3914
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 4011
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 1
Extract:
In the impugned decision [...] the Director-General did not accept [the] recommendations. He fully explained the reasons for not doing so as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 3968, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3968
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
