Motivation (669,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation
Total judgments found: 102
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Such laconic reasoning which, in the absence of any specific reference to legal or factual considerations, prevents the complainant from ascertaining whether each of the pleas presented in support of his appeal was duly examined by the Board, or from challenging the merits of that body’s recommendation, plainly does not satisfy the minimum standards required in order to ensure that the complainant’s right to a fair appeal procedure is respected (see, for a comparable case, Judgment 1317, under 33).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation; report;
Judgment 3994
126th Session, 2018
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges CERN’s refusal to recognise the illness from which she says she suffers as occupational.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls [...] 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 his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself (see Judgment 2092, under 10).
In this case, the Director-General followed the recommendation of the Joint Advisory Appeals Board. In accordance with the principle cited above, she was not obliged to engage in any “further questioning”, despite what the complainant maintains.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
In his email cover note [...], under which the Director-General transmitted the JAB’s report to the complainant, he relevantly stated as follows:
“I write in reference to the Appeal that you have made to the Joint Appeals Board [...]. I wish to confirm that I have received the attached reply from the JAB in this regard.
I take due note of the findings of the JAB Board and am copying this message to both [the Director, New Delhi Component] and [the Chief, Legal and Administration] for due attention.”
Although that may be deduced from the statement, the Director-General should have stated, unequivocally, that he accepted the findings and recommendation of the JAB. The Tribunal would usually remit the case to the Director-General for clarification. However that course of action is considered unnecessary as it would serve no useful purpose in the present case given that it is plain that the complaint is unmeritorious.
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3908
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly observed, and recently done so in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, that: “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3884
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The fact that the decision was purely implicit meant, by definition, that it was not accompanied by a statement of reasons.
Keywords:
implied decision; motivation;
Judgment 3863
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3862
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3858
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s jurisprudence requires that when the ultimate decision-maker rejects, as she or he is entitled to, the conclusions and recommendations of an internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons for doing so (see, for example, Judgments 3312, consideration 6, and 3208, consideration 11, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3312
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3838
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The contested decision does not fulfil this requirement to provide reasons. It is true that the complainant received from the Organization a memorandum reminding him that his limited duration appointment would end on the date initially specified and giving him information on the administrative formalities to be completed before he left. However, the memorandum contains no indication of the reasons why the Organization was adhering strictly to the specified departure date, such as a reference to the fact that the duties for which the appointment had been made had come to an end, or to the fact that it was not possible to assign him to other duties.
Keywords:
motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3835
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who received a special post allowance, challenges the denial of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Director-General failed to provide any explanation as to why [the complainant] did not follow the Appeal Board’s recommendation in this regard, in breach of the requirements established by the case law (see Judgment 3208, under 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
Keywords:
final decision; motivation;
Judgment 3830
124th Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to her previous grade in the General Service category upon the expiry of her fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In relation to the adequacy of the Director General’s reasons for rejecting the JAB’s conclusions and its recommendation “that the [complainant] be granted a long-term contract at the P level, that she be retroactively reintroduced at her P4 level grade, and that an adequate P4 level position be offered to her to bring her to retirement”, consistent precedent has it that when an executive head takes a decision which is at variance with a recommendation of the internal appeals body, she or he must provide adequate reasons for doing so. Accordingly, the Tribunal stated, for example, as follows in Judgment 3208, consideration 11 [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3772
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him a contract without limit of time.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the staff member concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. How extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see Judgments 1817, under 6, and 3617, under 5).
The Tribunal notes that the reason given to the complainant in the decision of 6 March 2014 for the dismissal of his internal complaint was that the Sub-Committee had “performed its task with diligence and care”. However, this explanation was not sufficiently explicit, since it did not contain precise details that would allow the complainant, or indeed a judge, to understand the real grounds on which the decision was based.
In the present case, it was not until the complainant read the ILO’s reply to his complaint before the Tribunal that he became fully aware of the reasons for which he had not been granted a contract without limit of time. That decision itself therefore furnished insufficient reasons. However, the Tribunal’s case law has it that the reasons for a decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself but can be contained in other documents communicated to the official 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, under 9, 1817, under 6, 2112, under 5, or 2927, under 7).
In this case, the complainant’s rejoinder provided an opportunity for him to express his opinion regarding the reasons for the impugned decision stated in the ILO’s reply. As the lack of reasoning noted above was hence remedied during the proceedings before the Tribunal, this plea will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927, 3617
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3747
123rd Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Director General stated that he disagreed with the Appeal Board’s finding that the second vacancy announcement [… should be considered invalid since the Administration had failed to withdraw vacancy announcement […] beforehand. The Director General did not provide adequate reasons for his disagreement with the Appeal Board in this respect, as he limited himself to explaining that “[he] consider[ed] [the Appeal Board’s view] to be particularly formalistic given that no injury was caused [to the complainant] as a result”. First, his reference to the formalistic nature of the Appeal Board’s view is unconvincing, as the law is, by its very nature, formalistic. Second, his statement that the failure to cancel vacancy announcement […] did not cause any injury to the complainant is questionable as the Director General did not expressly consider the complainant’s allegations that his chances to succeed had been reduced.
Keywords:
motivation; selection procedure;
Judgment 3743
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he executive head of an international organisation is under a duty to provide reasons for rejecting a recommendation by an internal appeal body (see, for example, Judgment 3208, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3727
123rd Session, 2017
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose post was abolished following a restructuring exercise, challenges the new final decision taken by the Secretary General pursuant to Judgment 3208.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s observations were not intended to mark out the boundaries of what is required by the executive head of an organisation (or a person acting on her or his behalf) in providing reasons for a conclusion which is at odds with the conclusions and recommendations of an internal appeal body. 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 (see, for example, Judgments 2278, consideration 9, 2347, consideration 14, and 2699, consideration 24). 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”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2347, 2699
Keywords:
motivation;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant was entitled to a more complete explanation of why his position had been “cut” which should have involved a more thorough or detailed comparison of the duties and responsibilities of the position he then held [...] and that of the new position [...]. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the impugned decision does not meet the requirements established by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3725
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.
Consideration 23
Extract:
The principle concerning the need for the Director-General to motivate the impugned decision requires this to be done where the recommendations of the JAB are not accepted.
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3703
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension by one month and the subsequent non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 15
Extract:
In refusing to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the Centre, for the reasons stated above, did not abuse its discretionary authority to consider, quite legitimately, that the mismanagement of the project for which he was responsible had gravely undermined the confidence and trust necessary for his further employment and that this warranted the termination of his appointment.
Keywords:
motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3695
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the EPO’s rejection of his two internal appeals against the Ombudsman’s failure to follow the formal procedure in respect of his harassment complaint and against the President’s decision to reject that harassment complaint.
Consideration 9
Extract:
An executive head of an organisation has a duty to substantiate a final decision departing from the recommendations of an appeal committee (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, and 3208, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208
Keywords:
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3662
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his transfer to another post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant first submits that insufficient reasons were given for the transfer decision to which he objects, in that it merely referred to Article 7 of the General Conditions of Employment. He adds that his transfer was decided unilaterally by Eurocontrol in breach of his right to be heard. He contends that the fact that this decision provided no information about the nature of his new job was a breach of the principle of good faith and that it also breached the rule against retroactivity, since he was notified of it on 11 June 2013, whereas it had taken effect on 1 June 2013.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the reasons given to the complainant for the decision to transfer him are confined to very general references to the applicable provisions. Such references are, however, meaningless if they are not accompanied by more precise information enabling the official and, possibly, the judge to comprehend the real grounds underpinning the decision taken, especially in the case of a measure, such as that of transferring an official, which should be hedged with safeguards.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; transfer;
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, the reasons for any decision having an adverse effect, such as a transfer decision, must be stated. The reasons may be contained in the notice given to the official of the decision or in some other document. The Tribunal also accepts that the reasons may be provided in prior proceedings, or orally, or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 1590, under 7, 1757, under 5, and 3316, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; transfer;
Consideration 5
Extract:
It follows [...] that the complainant had been given explanations enabling him to comment on his new duties in detail and in full knowledge of the facts before the decision of 11 June 2013. That decision therefore satisfied the requirements of the Tribunal’s case law regarding the need to provide reasons (see Judgments 1817, under 6, 2391, under 7, or 2850, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 2391, 2850
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; transfer;
Judgment 3660
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his transfer, complaining that he was ousted from his job, without notice or prior consultation, and assigned to a “fictitious job”.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, the reasons for any decision having an adverse effect, such as a transfer decision, must be stated. The reasons may be contained in the notice given to the official of the decision or in some other document. The Tribunal also accepts that the reasons may be provided in prior proceedings, or orally, or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge. (See Judgments 1590, under 7, 1757, under 5, and 3316, under 7.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316
Keywords:
motivation; transfer;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the reasons given to the complainant in this document to justify the decision to transfer him are confined to very general references to the applicable provisions. Such references are, however, meaningless if they are not accompanied by more precise information enabling the official and, as the case may be, the judge to comprehend the real grounds underpinning the decision taken, especially in the case of a measure, such as that of transferring an official, which should be hedged with safeguards.
Keywords:
motivation; transfer;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
