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 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 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 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 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 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 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 3617
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination during the investigation of her complaint of harassment and the dismissal of that complaint.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the reasons given to the complainant to justify the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination are confined to a general reference to the protection of her health and well-being and to the EPO’s duty of care towards her. Such terms are meaningless unless they are accompanied by more precise information enabling the employee and, as the case may be, the Tribunal to ascertain the real reasons underpinning the decision taken, especially when it involves a measure, such as requiring an employee to undergo a medical examination, which should be hedged with safeguards.
The Tribunal therefore considers that the complainant was insufficiently informed of the reasons why she had to undergo a medical examination and that she was thus prevented from challenging the grounds for this decision in full knowledge of the facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2124
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3208
115th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his contract following the abolition of his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has noted, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants (see Judgment 2781). If the ultimate decision-maker rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons (see Judgments 2278, 2355, 2699, 2807 and 3042). The value of the safeguard is significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority can reject conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without explaining why. If adequate reasons are not required, then room emerges for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042
Keywords:
bias; case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; refusal; safeguard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; motivation; motivation of final decision; termination of employment;
Judgment 2807
106th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(a)
Extract:
"The Director-General departed from the Appeals Board's recommendations. He had a duty to explain in adequate detail why he had done so."
Keywords:
decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; grounds; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
