Motivation (669,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation
Total judgments found: 113
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 3835
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who received a special post allowance, challenges the denial of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Director-General failed to provide any explanation as to why [the complainant] did not follow the Appeal Board’s recommendation in this regard, in breach of the requirements established by the case law (see Judgment 3208, under 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
Keywords:
final decision; motivation;
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 3772
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him a contract without limit of time.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the staff member concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. How extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see Judgments 1817, under 6, and 3617, under 5).
The Tribunal notes that the reason given to the complainant in the decision of 6 March 2014 for the dismissal of his internal complaint was that the Sub-Committee had “performed its task with diligence and care”. However, this explanation was not sufficiently explicit, since it did not contain precise details that would allow the complainant, or indeed a judge, to understand the real grounds on which the decision was based.
In the present case, it was not until the complainant read the ILO’s reply to his complaint before the Tribunal that he became fully aware of the reasons for which he had not been granted a contract without limit of time. That decision itself therefore furnished insufficient reasons. However, the Tribunal’s case law has it that the reasons for a decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself but can be contained in other documents communicated to the official 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, under 9, 1817, under 6, 2112, under 5, or 2927, under 7).
In this case, the complainant’s rejoinder provided an opportunity for him to express his opinion regarding the reasons for the impugned decision stated in the ILO’s reply. As the lack of reasoning noted above was hence remedied during the proceedings before the Tribunal, this plea will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927, 3617
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3747
123rd Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Director General stated that he disagreed with the Appeal Board’s finding that the second vacancy announcement [… should be considered invalid since the Administration had failed to withdraw vacancy announcement […] beforehand. The Director General did not provide adequate reasons for his disagreement with the Appeal Board in this respect, as he limited himself to explaining that “[he] consider[ed] [the Appeal Board’s view] to be particularly formalistic given that no injury was caused [to the complainant] as a result”. First, his reference to the formalistic nature of the Appeal Board’s view is unconvincing, as the law is, by its very nature, formalistic. Second, his statement that the failure to cancel vacancy announcement […] did not cause any injury to the complainant is questionable as the Director General did not expressly consider the complainant’s allegations that his chances to succeed had been reduced.
Keywords:
motivation; selection procedure;
Judgment 3743
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he executive head of an international organisation is under a duty to provide reasons for rejecting a recommendation by an internal appeal body (see, for example, Judgment 3208, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3727
123rd Session, 2017
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose post was abolished following a restructuring exercise, challenges the new final decision taken by the Secretary General pursuant to Judgment 3208.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s observations were not intended to mark out the boundaries of what is required by the executive head of an organisation (or a person acting on her or his behalf) in providing reasons for a conclusion which is at odds with the conclusions and recommendations of an internal appeal body. 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 (see, for example, Judgments 2278, consideration 9, 2347, consideration 14, and 2699, consideration 24). 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”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2347, 2699
Keywords:
motivation;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant was entitled to a more complete explanation of why his position had been “cut” which should have involved a more thorough or detailed comparison of the duties and responsibilities of the position he then held [...] and that of the new position [...]. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the impugned decision does not meet the requirements established by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3725
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.
Consideration 23
Extract:
The principle concerning the need for the Director-General to motivate the impugned decision requires this to be done where the recommendations of the JAB are not accepted.
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 3703
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension by one month and the subsequent non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 15
Extract:
In refusing to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the Centre, for the reasons stated above, did not abuse its discretionary authority to consider, quite legitimately, that the mismanagement of the project for which he was responsible had gravely undermined the confidence and trust necessary for his further employment and that this warranted the termination of his appointment.
Keywords:
motivation; non-renewal of contract;
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 3660
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, complaining that he was ousted from his job, without notice or prior consultation, and assigned to a “fictitious job”.
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; transfer;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the reasons given to the complainant in this document to justify 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, as the case may be, 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; 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 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
