Motivation of final decision (891,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation of final decision
Total judgments found: 70
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
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 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 4314
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated, usually in the context of internal appeal proceedings, that it is necessary for an ultimate decision-making authority to motivate or explain the reasons for not accepting a prior review and motivated recommendation. Having regard to its rationale, which the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3208, consideration 11, this requirement is equally applicable in this case, which concerns the final decision taken on a recommendation as to the classification of a post. According to that reasoning, if the ultimate decision-maker (the Director in this case) rejected the conclusions and recommendations of the body which was charged with making the prior review and motivated recommendation (the GAC in this case), the Director was obliged to provide adequate reasons for so doing. The Tribunal has stated that the value of this safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants would be significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority could reject conclusions and recommendations of the body that made the prior review and motivated recommendation without explaining why. It additionally stated that, if adequate reasons were not required, then room would emerge for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4307
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for the reclassification of his post as well as his request for compensation for performing duties at a higher grade than his.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that the executive head of an organisation who rejects the conclusions and recommendations of an authority charged with making a prior recommendation is obliged to provide adequate reasons for rejecting them. This is to ensure that there will be no room for arbitrary, unprincipled, or even irrational, decision-making. However, 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 Judgments 3994, consideration 12, and 2092, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 3994
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation of final decision;
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;
Judgment 4281
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 not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
[T]he complainant alleges that the Director General did not state reasons for the decision [...] dismissing his internal complaint. He contends that a mere reference to the opinion of two members of the Joint Committee for Disputes does not constitute a relevant statement of reasons that allows an objective assessment of the legality of the impugned decision.
The Tribunal notes that out of the four members of the Joint Committee for Disputes, two took the view that the complainant’s internal complaint should be dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that the procedure provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Rule of Application No. 4 had been followed. In stating, in the decision [...], that he “share[d] the opinion of [those members]”, the Director General endorsed their reasoning. The plea alleging a failure to state reasons is therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
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 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
