|
|
 |
|
|
Motivation of final decision (891,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation of final decision
Total judgments found: 70
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4
Judgment 2699
104th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that when rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeals body that favours a complainant, the final decision-maker must give clear and cogent reasons for such a decision (see Judgments 2092, 2261, 2347 and 2355)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; recommendation; refusal;
Judgment 2355
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2339
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement that where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated. ([...] see Judgments 2092, 2261 [...], 2347 and 2355.) It is not enough for the decision maker - in this case the President of the Office - simply to state that he is not convinced by the recommendation or to refer in general terms to the arguments presented by the Administration before the appeal body. Such statements do not adequately inform either the employee or the Tribunal as to the real reasons underlying the impugned decision. Nor do they show that the decision maker has properly fulfilled his duty to apply his own mind to the questions raised on the appeal and to give his own reasons for concluding as he has. It is not enough simply to endorse in broad terms all that the Administration, which, like the appellant, is subordinate to the President, has presented before the appeal body. The President is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and he must be, and be seen to be, objective and impartial. At the very least, where it is intended to place reliance on arguments which are more fully set forth in some other document, that document must be precisely identified and a copy of the relevant passages should accompany the decision itself and be specifically endorsed as representing the President's own considered opinion which has been reached after the appellant's arguments have been placed before him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; refusal; report;
Judgment 2278
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly stressed the necessity for administrative decisions to be properly supported by reasons. That is especially the case where, after an elaborate internal appeal procedure in which each side has filed extensive and detailed pleadings, the executive head of an international organisation, acting in a quasi judicial capacity and as the penultimate arbiter of disputes between the administration and the staff, decides not to accept the recommendation of the internal appellate body. In Judgment 2092, under 10, the Tribunal said:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1817
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that 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 his full say."
Keywords:
case pending; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1673
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The duty to explain a decision or a conclusion "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."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1369
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"The duty to explain a decision is a general principle of administrative law: the decision-maker must at least give such statement of the reasons for the decision that anyone it affects may defend his rights and the Tribunal may rule on any case before it. But the content of the duty will vary with the nature of the decision."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; general principle; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; purport; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1317
76th Session, 1994
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 33
Extract:
The report which the Board submitted [...] is open to even more serious objections. It is terse and offers no reasoning on issues of fact or of law. There is no telling whether, as due adversarial process required, the Board took up the complainant's pleas and the Union's replies. Even though a report by an appeals body is not a judgment by a court of law, the report [...] does not come up to the minimum standards of justice that the complainant was entitled to.
Keywords:
decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 1289
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has said before, many decisions by international organisations that prompt complaints are unsubstantiated. Yet the staff member is still able to defend his rights. Though not stated in the actual text, the reasons for the decision may be discerned from earlier correspondence between the parties or in the last resort from the organization's brief in reply to the complaint, which the staff member may comment on in his rejoinder. Unless there is express derogation the rule is that the organization need not, if that is not its practice, state the reasons for all its decisions: what matters is that the absence of a statement should not be to the staff member's detriment."
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; duty to substantiate decision; injury; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; practice; rejoinder; reply; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4
|
|
|
|
|
