Motivation (669,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation
Total judgments found: 102
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
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 3497
120th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the refusal of her request that her mother’s condition be recognized as a serious illness.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority (see Judgment 2781, under 15). 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 decisions. (See Judgment 3208, under 11.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042, 3208
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal procedure; motivation;
Judgment 3312
117th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The disciplinary sanction taken by the Executive Head departing from the recommendation of a disciplinary board is cancelled for lack of sufficient reasons.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; motivation;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; motivation; motivation of final decision; termination of employment;
Judgment 3148
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, the lack or inadequacy of an explanation can be remedied at the appeal stage provided that the appeal body may examine the complete file and that the staff member is given his or her full say (see, in particular, Judgment 2668, under 7(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2668
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3117
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that the decision [...] breached the principle of due process in that it was taken on the basis of information which had not previously been brought to his attention. In this connexion the Tribunal notes that, when an international organisation examines a request submitted by a staff member, it is not bound to inform that person of all the steps which it is taking in that respect. On the other hand, in that or any other situation, it does have a duty to provide the person concerned with any items of information which might have a bearing on the outcome of his/her claims (see Judgments 1815, under 5, or 2315, under 27 ). [...]
However, according to the Tribunal's case law, failure to disclose an item of information will in any case not render a decision unlawful where this flaw has been remedied in the course of an internal appeal procedure or of proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 301, under 2, 1815, under 4 and 5, or 2558, under 5(a)), and that is precisely what occurred in this case since [...] a copy of the email in question was forwarded to the complainant at the same time as the disputed decision, with the result that he was duly enabled to challenge its content during the internal appeal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 301, 1815, 2315, 2558
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; due process; duty to inform; motivation;
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;
Judgment 2762
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 26-27
Extract:
The complainant challenges the EPO's decision to recruit the spouse of the former President of the Office. "The Organisation is correct in stating that the Service Regulations do not preclude the recruitment of the spouses of staff members. Nor does there appear to be any regulatory bar to the recruitment of the spouses, friends, or close associates of the highest ranking officials in the Organisation. Whether this type of recruitment ought to be permitted is not for the Tribunal to decide but is a question of policy for each organisation to answer.
However, where an organisation permits such recruitment, then it is imperative that special procedures be put in place to ensure the integrity and transparency of the selection process. Where such procedures have not been put in place, the presumptions of regularity and bona fides will not apply. In the absence of the operation of these presumptions, it will take very little to establish improper motive or bad faith."
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; competition; executive head; family relationship; good faith; motivation; presumption; procedure before the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 2741
105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(a)
Extract:
The decision-making authority cannot disregard the opinions or recommendations it receives from advisory bodies without good reason (see Judgment 2092, under 10). Otherwise, advisory procedures would be meaningless and serve no purpose. However, such opinions or recommendations do not bind the decision-making authority to the extent of barring it from undertaking an impartial assessment of the merits of the proposals made and curtailing its obligation to examine carefully, in particular, whether the findings of fact that they contain are correct. Nevertheless, where a decision-making authority intends to disregard the recommendations of advisory bodies, it must state clearly in its decision the objective grounds that led it to opt for a divergent conclusion. In the case of a disciplinary procedure, this clearly applies not only to the appraisal of the evidence gathered but also, on the one hand, to the decision whether or not to order a penalty and, on the other, to the severity of the penalty, which should respect the principle of proportionality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; final decision; motivation; proportionality;
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 2347
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
It is trite law that any decision negatively affecting a staff member must be reasoned. The Tribunal has consistently held that the breach of the duty to substantiate such decisions is in itself sufficient to warrant the Tribunal’s intervention. In Judgment 2261, a recent example following a long line of precedent, the Tribunal stated the following:
“In one respect, however, the complainant’s allegation of error of law is fully justified. The Tribunal’s case law holds that any decision negatively affecting an employee must be reasoned [...]. It is not for the Tribunal […] to find justification for the unmotivated decision of the Director General. Those findings cannot be sustained.”
Likewise, in Judgment 2278 the Tribunal said:
“9. In the first place, the 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.’
10. As the titular head of the very administration whose conduct is being called into question, the President of the Office must be scrupulous in the performance of his function as final decision maker in internal appeals. It is his duty not only to be fair and objective; his conduct must also make it manifest that he has been so. It is not enough to state, as the President appears to do in the impugned decision, that he thinks the administration has put forward the better case. That is not a reason but a conclusion. The internal appellate process is designed and intended to provide fair, satisfactory and rapid resolution of staff grievances in international organisations. To treat it in the cavalier manner displayed in the present case tends to throw the whole process into disrepute. That is not in the best interests of anybody, least of all the Organisation itself. For its failure to respect an essential formality, the decision must be quashed.”
In the same vein see Judgments 1235 and 1355.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1235, 1355, 2261, 2278
Keywords:
decision; motivation;
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 2226
95th Session, 2003
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
In one case, the Tribunal conceded that the Organization's own interests are paramount, "but it must still, for the sake of proper management and mutual confidence, treat its staff fairly […]. It must give him a statement of the reasons for the transfer and the opportunity of responding" (see Judgment 1234, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234
Keywords:
motivation; transfer;
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 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"In taking the decision which is now under challenge the Director-General gave no reasons himself. He did not say that he based his decision on the [Joint Appeals] Board's report and recommendation. [...] Assuming that he did rely on the Board's report, the Tribunal is satisfied that in view of the contradictory statements of the Board and the unorthodox way in which they conducted their enquiry, the complainant was not accorded due process and accordingly the impugned decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
