Duty to substantiate decision (30,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to substantiate decision
Total judgments found: 138
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that 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, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law 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, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
“An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).”
In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
“However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
‘It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules [...].’”
This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 29
Extract:
Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
“Even though an organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).”
In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, [consideration] 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de rejeter ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral et demande réparation pour le préjudice qu’il estime avoir subi.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Le Tribunal observe, en troisième lieu, que, bien que les deux éléments qui viennent d’être exposés aient, parmi d’autres, été expressément relevés par la Commission paritaire des litiges afin de conclure à l’unanimité, dans son avis rendu le 24 janvier 2022, au caractère fondé de la réclamation introduite par le requérant, ces éléments n’ont été aucunement abordés dans la motivation contenue dans la décision finale du Directeur général du 12 mai 2022. Il y a donc lieu de considérer que la motivation qui figure dans cette décision n’est pas non plus adéquate, au sens de la jurisprudence du Tribunal en la matière (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4700, au considérant 4 ; 4598, au considérant 12 ; 4400, au considérant 10 et 4062, au considérant 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4400, 4598, 4700
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
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 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 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;
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 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;
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 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Considerations 10 and 16
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed:
“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. [...]"
[In the present case], the President has failed to adequately motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant acted in bad faith, and failed to adequately motivate his ultimate conclusion on the disciplinary sanction he imposed and the reasons for it with specific reference to all mitigating circumstances. His decision should be set aside and the matter remitted to the EPO to enable the President to make a new decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3968
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of downgrading for serious misconduct, and the decision not to initiate an investigation into her allegations of institutional harassment.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Consistent case law holds 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” (see Judgment 3862, under 20) (see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the President justified his deviation from the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed: “the executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow the 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. In addition, according to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 3862
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3929
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to consistent case law, “[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” (see Judgment 3862, under 20; see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the Director General did not adequately motivate his decision. This flaw is enough to set aside the impugned final decision [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
