|
|
 |
|
|
Motivation of final decision (891,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation of final decision
Total judgments found: 70
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[W]hile it is true that the Secretary-General did not consult the complainant’s head of unit on the matter, as the Appeal Board had also recommended, the Tribunal’s case law establishes that the executive head of an organisation may reject the recommendations of an internal appeal body as long as reasons are given for her or his decision (see, for example, Judgment 4616, consideration 9, and the judgments cited therein). Since the Secretary-General provided reasons in support of his decision explaining why he deemed it unnecessary to consult the head of unit, the Tribunal considers that the argument on which the complainant seeks to rely, solely concerning that lack of consultation, must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4762
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that the executive head of an international organisation, while at liberty to disagree with, and reject, recommendations made by an internal appeal body, must explain why and the basis for the disagreement and rejection (see, for example, Judgment 4598, consideration 12). The Executive Director has not done so in the present case and her decision should be quashed and the matter remitted to the WHO/UNAIDS for a fresh decision to be taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4598
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; motivation of final decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; misconduct; motivation of final decision; termination of employment;
Judgment 4699
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the reasoning on which the [impugned] decision [...] was based constitutes a sufficient response to the various arguments raised by the complainant in his internal complaint [...]. In her decision, the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit referred to the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes, explaining that she endorsed the view of the two committee members who considered the internal complaint to be unfounded, and this in itself met the requirements of the case law (see Judgments 4473, considerations 4 and 5, and 4281, consideration 11). In addition, she set out the reasons why she considered that due process had been followed and why any challenge to the medical aspects of matter was now time-barred. This reasoning was sufficient and adequate in view of the complainant’s arguments.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4281, 4473
Keywords:
motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4662
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal has consistently held, “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 4307, consideration 15). In the present case, in the impugned decision, the Secretary General refers to the detailed reasons and explanations set out in the unanimous opinion of the Joint Appeal Committee and summarises them, emphasising the salient points before stating his conclusions. Again, the reasons provided for the decision were sufficiently explicit to enable the complainant to take an informed decision accordingly, as her submissions show, and to allow the Tribunal to exercise its power of review in the present judgment (see Judgment 4081, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4081, 4307
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4616
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision finding that she had harassed another staff member and imposing a written reprimand on her.
Consideration 9
Extract:
As the Tribunal’s case law establishes, the executive head of an organisation, when adopting the recommendations of an internal appeal body, is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. The obligation to give reasons is affirmed only where the executive head of an organisation rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the appeal body (see Judgments 4307, consideration 15, and 3994, consideration 12). Accordingly, having accepted the advice of the Advisory Board, the Secretary-General was under no obligation to provide further reasons for his decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4307
Keywords:
final decision; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4598
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade for her failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of staff members.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A] mere declaration […] that [the Director-General] was satisfied of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt without explaining why, involves a failure to motivate a conclusion at odds with the conclusion of the internal appeals body. This failure, alone, would justify the setting aside of the impugned decision (see Judgments 4400, consideration 10, 4062, consideration 3, and 3969, considerations 10 and 16). What, at a minimum, the Director-General needed to have done was explain why the analysis of the GBA […] was flawed, or did not sustain the ultimate conclusion of the GBA, or both. He did neither.
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation of final decision; standard of proof;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Director-General endorsed the conclusions of IOS […] notwithstanding it simply said, “there is sufficient evidence”. There is an obvious tension, if not inconsistency, between endorsing a conclusion based on findings of fact about misconduct on the basis of sufficient evidence and a declaration that the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are several judgments of the Tribunal deprecating reliance simply on the sufficiency of evidence as establishing misconduct in disciplinary proceedings. One illustration is found in Judgment 3880, consideration 9 […]
[I]t can be inferred, in this case, that the mere declaration of the Director-General that the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt did not reflect a genuine and considered evaluation of the evidence, and an assessment of it by reference to the applicable standard of proof.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3880
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; motivation of final decision; standard of proof;
Judgment 4591
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the reduction in the amount of his functional allowance calculated in proportion to the reduction in his working hours.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant also complains that no explanation was provided to him with his payslip [...].
The Tribunal considers, however, [...] that an automatic decision, such as that to reduce the amount of an [...] allowance, is simply the consequence of putting into practice the change in the complainant’s working hours to which he had agreed and that the applicable rules are sufficiently clear. There is therefore no requirement for the Organisation to provide a more detailed formal explanation than that which appeared on the payslip sent to the complainant [...]. By reading that payslip, the complainant was able to understand that the amount of his allowance had been reduced by 20 per cent. It was therefore open to him to familiarise himself with the relevant provisions and, if necessary, to request further information in that regard.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; payslip;
Judgment 4586
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to convert his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for misconduct against him, as well as the overall length of his suspension.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The reasons given for the suspension without pay from 26 March 2019, and in effect the reason for transforming the suspension as one with pay to one without pay, was [...] that: “[t]he various interviews that have been conducted by OIG, including with you, and the strong evidence gathered thus far in the course of the investigation have reinforced the credibility of the allegations raised against you” and later: “the elements gathered by OIG [...] reinforce[d] the credibility of the allegations raised against you”. The letter of 26 March 2019 does not refer to the requirement in the rules that suspension without pay can only occur if the Director General (or a person acting on delegation) considers there are exceptional circumstances. But it can reasonably be inferred that the additional elements just quoted were viewed as constituting exceptional circumstances. The legal question which then arises is whether it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to form that opinion. The word “exceptional”, in this context, denotes circumstances which are beyond, and probably well beyond, circumstances which might simply justify suspension with pay. But apart from that, the expression “exceptional circumstances” is an expression of great width. It must be borne in mind that the power to suspend does not simply arise in circumstances where allegations of serious misconduct are being investigated or pursued in disciplinary proceedings (as it does in some other organisations’ rules). The power to suspend as expressly conferred by IOM’s rules can be exercised in relation to any conduct which might lead to a disciplinary sanction which could include alleged minor transgressions. But, of course, questions of proportionality can arise as discussed in consideration 8 [...]. Moreover, under Rule 10.3(d) a person suspended without pay is entitled to receive pay withheld if the allegations against the staff member were not substantiated or later found not to warrant summary dismissal. In this respect, the Rule itself ameliorates what otherwise might be viewed as the severe effect of suspension without pay. What, in substance, the letter of 26 March 2019 was saying was that the case against the complainant involving the receipt of corrupt payments of approximately 600,000 United States dollars (and solicited by him) was one where there was a much-increased measure of certainty, in the eyes of the Organization, that in fact corrupt payments in this amount had been received. If proved it would be a gross misconduct of the most egregious kind and almost certainly criminal behaviour. The decision-maker was entitled, in the Tribunal’s view, to treat the highly likely fact that the complainant had received corrupt payments in this amount solicited by him, as giving rise to exceptional circumstances in all the circumstances.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; suspension without pay;
Judgment 4565
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of downgrading for having engaged in gainful employment while on non-active status without prior authorisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In the impugned decision […], the President was […] following the Committee’s conclusions (including that the complainant had acted in good faith) and recommendation which, in turn, was based, […] on a balanced and thoughtful consideration by the Committee of all the circumstances. In such a case, an executive head does not need to fully motivate acceptance and adoption of the conclusions and applicable recommendation (see Judgment 4044, consideration 7), particularly bearing in mind that the imposition of a disciplinary measure involves the exercise of a wide discretionary power (see Judgment 4460, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4044, 4460
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he President’s reasoning is clearly inadequate, as it is limited to a reference to the report and recommendations of the JAB, which evidently likewise failed to take into account the principles set out above when carrying out its work. Given that the President merely stated that the complainant’s internal complaint had been examined by AUO in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable within IFAD through the conduct of a full investigation, the Tribunal considers that such reasoning, which takes no account of the complainant’s criticisms in her internal appeal, does not constitute adequate reasoning for the purposes of the case law according to which any decision adversely affecting a staff member must state the reasons on which it is based (see, for example, Judgment 2347, considerations 11 and 12) and consequently must be founded on valid grounds (see, for example, Judgment 4108, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 4108
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4545
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which “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:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4543
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which “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:
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[M]erely informing an international civil servant that disciplinary proceedings have been started against a supervisor
following an investigation into a complaint of harassment and that appropriate managerial measures have been taken [...] does not enable that civil servant to know whether the harassment she or he alleges has been recognised and, if so, how the organisation concerned intends to compensate her or him for the material or moral injury suffered (see, to that effect, Judgment 3965, consideration 9).
[...]
[T]he staff member who engaged the procedure, while not entitled to be informed of any measures taken against the alleged harasser, is entitled to a decision on the question of harassment itself (see [...] Judgment 3096, consideration 15) and, in consequence, to receive a reply from the administration concerning her or his harassment complaint (see, to that effect, Judgment 4207, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3096, 3965, 4207
Keywords:
harassment; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4503
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Organization complied with its duty of care. The complainant was given five months’ notice of the non-renewal of her contract; the expiry of the contract occurred at the contractually agreed time, and the complainant received reasons for the non-renewal, orally and in writing (see Judgment 4321, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4321
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Judgment 4495
134th Session, 2022
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The obligation to give reasons for a non-renewal have been variously described as providing “valid reasons” (see Judgment 3769, consideration 7), and not “arbitrary or irrational” reasons (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2). While the reasons given in this case may be contestable, they were not of a character to sustain a conclusion they were, for example, not valid or arbitrary or irrational. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3586, consideration 6: “the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3586, 3769
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4473
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to recognise his son’s condition as a “serious illness” within the meaning of the provisions governing reimbursement of medical expenses.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that of the eight-member Committee, four were in favour of dismissing the internal complaint. In this respect, the Tribunal refers to Judgment 4281, consideration 11, which states, in a situation where two opinions enjoyed equal support as in this case:
“In stating, in the decision of 13 December 2016, 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.”
Thus, the impugned decision of 21 February 2019 not only endorses the findings of the four members of the Committee who opposed the recognition of serious illness, but also provides further justification for the choice to accept the negative opinion and specifies the reasons for the complainant’s internal complaint being dismissed.
Keywords:
motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; dependent child; health insurance; illness; insurance benefits; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is plain from Judgments 4167 and 4217, which also concern complaints of psychological harassment, that a decision is rendered unlawful by the refusal of an organisation’s executive head to disclose to the joint appeals body the report of the investigation into the harassment complaint lodged by the official concerned, or at least a redacted copy thereof. Similarly, in the aforementioned Judgment 4217, considerations 4 to 6, the Tribunal points out that, according to settled case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him. In this case, the Joint Committee for Disputes, on whose opinion the Director General states he bases his decision of 15 December 2016, was not provided with the investigation report concerned. Nor had the complainant received it by the time he was notified on 14 January 2016 that his psychological harassment complaint had been closed. In Judgment 4081, the Tribunal recalls that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the Director General neither provided information nor referred to the Committee’s reasons that would allow the complainant to understand why the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4217
Keywords:
confidentiality; final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4467
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the recruitment process and the resulting appointment for the post of Client Relationship Manager, for which he had applied.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The case law states, in consideration 5 of Judgment 4081, for example, that 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. However, the Tribunal has also stated, in consideration 4 of Judgment 2978, that when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly when the Administration chooses between candidates, the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision. These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of a procedure arising from a challenge to the selection process […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4081
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
Judgment 4455
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]here is an anterior issue, namely whether the complainant was provided with adequate reasons for the decision to suspend her with pay bearing in mind that suspension is a matter of some gravity (see Judgment 3496, consideration 2). As noted earlier, one relevant question arising under Staff Rule 29(1) for which reasons should be provided at least in case such as the present, is why the decision-maker (the Secretary-General) concluded that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. Ordinarily the other question arising under Staff Rule 29(1), whether it is a case that appears to call for a sanction, can readily be answered by reference to the actual or pending charges and the then known or alleged facts. Generally, the source of those reasons can be a document other than the document communicating the decision and indeed can be what an official is told at a meeting (see, for example, Judgment 4037, consideration 7, and Judgment 3914, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3496, 3914, 4037
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; suspension;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that a transfer decision satisfies the requirements laid down in its case law concerning the statement of reasons when, in particular, the staff member was given explanations enabling her or him to comment on the new duties in detail and in full knowledge of the facts before the decision was taken (see Judgment 3662, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal considers that, just as the requisite statement of reasons may be contained in the notification informing the staff member of the decision or any other document, the reasons may also be provided in prior proceedings, or orally (see, inter alia, Judgments 1590, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 4397, consideration 15), or may even be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 1590, consideration 7, and 3316, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316, 3662, 4397
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; transfer;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
