ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations

Site Map \| Contact	français

	> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Motivation of final decision (891,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation of final decision
Total judgments found: 77

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

Judgment 4894

138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.

Consideration 5

Extract:

In substance, the Vice-President of DG4 has failed to motivate the impugned decision [�], which departed from the recommendation of the Internal Appeals Committee. He is legally obliged to do so (see, for example, Judgments 4772, consideration 12, 4762, consideration 8, and 4598, consideration 12). For this reason alone, the impugned decision should be set aside, as the complainant seeks.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4598, 4762, 4772

Keywords:

motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4877

138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste le non-renouvellement de son engagement � titre temporaire.

Consideration 12

Extract:

[D]ans sa r�plique, le requ�rant reproche � la Directrice g�n�rale de ne pas avoir expos�, dans sa d�cision [�], les raisons pour lesquelles elle s�est �cart�e des opinions dissidentes formul�es par deux membres du Conseil d�appel. Mais le Tribunal rappelle que le simple renvoi expr�s par la Directrice g�n�rale � la recommandation du Conseil d�appel constitue en soi une motivation ad�quate (voir, dans ce sens, le jugement 4147, au consid�rant 10).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4147

Keywords:

motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4865

138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Advisor, Gender Equality, following a competitive recruitment process.

Consideration 7

Extract:

In the present case, the complainant argues that the impugned decision should be set aside because there was a dissenting opinion by a member of the Global Board of Appeal (GBA) who found that there was a breach of the selection procedure, but the Executive Director accepted the opinion of the majority of the GBA without explaining why she rejected the dissenting member�s recommendation. The argument is unfounded. In the case leading to Judgment 2347, the author of the impugned decision did not adequately explain why he rejected the Appeals Board�s recommendations. As a result, the complainant in that case was not in a position to make an informed decision whether or not to have recourse to the Tribunal and of the bases for challenging the impugned decision. In the present case, however, the Director General accepted the conclusions and recommendation of the majority of the GBA, and the reasons on which the majority reached those conclusions were fully explained in its report, thereby enabling the complainant to make the informed decision. This aligns with the Tribunal�s statement in consideration 10 of Judgment 4147 that when the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself. There is no authority that requires an executive head of an organization having accepted the opinion of the majority of an internal appeal body to motivate or explain the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the minority. Even assuming that there was case law requiring that to be done, on the facts of this case, there was no need for the Executive Director to explain why she rejected the conclusions of the minority. It was clearly implicit in her acceptance of the opinion of the majority.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 4147

Keywords:

motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4842

138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: La requ�rante conteste l�application � son traitement de la nouvelle grille de traitements pour 2018.

Consideration 6

Extract:

� [L]orsque le chef ex�cutif d�une organisation fait siennes les recommandations d�un organe de recours interne, il n�est pas tenu, dans sa d�cision, de donner d�autres raisons que celles invoqu�es par cet organe lui-m�me� (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4662, au consid�rant 15, et 4307, au consid�rant 15).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4307, 4662

Keywords:

motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4832

138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.

Considerations 31-33

Extract:

In Judgment 3969, consideration 10, referring to Judgment 3862, consideration 20, the Tribunal recalled the overarching legal principles that apply in terms of motivation of a decision when the executive head of an organization elects not to follow the recommendation of an internal advisory body:
�[...] �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 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). [...]�
These observations, as they relate to reports and conclusions of internal appeal bodies, are equally applicable to reports and opinions of a Disciplinary Committee.�
The constant case law of the Tribunal confirms that an organization must provide a proper and clear motivation when it does not follow the opinion and recommendation of an internal appeal body to the detriment of the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). In Judgment 3161, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that it is necessary for the executive head of an organization to explain the basis on which she or he arrived at a different conclusion than that of the internal advisory body. In this regard, it is not enough to simply identify flaws in the reasoning or procedures of the advisory body, but reasons must be provided for the opposite conclusion reached by the executive head.
In the impugned decision, the Secretary-General offered no explanation to support his conclusion that he was maintaining a demotion by two grades notwithstanding the recommendation of the Appeal Board to refer the matter for re-evaluation to the JAC�s Disciplinary Chamber. Besides stating that this was his conclusion that such sanction was proportionate and appropriate under the circumstances, no more reasons were offered. This fell short of the requirements of the Tribunal�s case law that indicates that a complainant must be made aware of this motivation in order to be able to conduct herself or himself accordingly and properly respond (see, for example, Judgment 1817, consideration 6).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3161, 3649, 3862, 3969, 4062

Keywords:

motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4820

138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste les d�cisions de rejeter ses plaintes pour harc�lement moral et demande r�paration pour le pr�judice qu�il estime avoir subi.

Consideration 12

Extract:

En deuxi�me lieu, il appara�t, ainsi que le reconna�t l�Organisation dans son m�moire en r�ponse, que le rapport d�enqu�te n�a pas non plus �t� communiqu�, ni dans sa version compl�te ni m�me dans une version anonymis�e, � la Commission paritaire des litiges avant que cette derni�re ne donne son avis le 27 f�vrier 2020, ce qui, en soi, constitue �galement une irr�gularit�, d�s lors que la Commission doit pouvoir donner en toutes circonstances un avis complet et �clair� (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4471, au consid�rant 14, et 4167, au consid�rant 3).
La circonstance que les membres de la Commission ont consid�r� � l�unanimit� que la r�clamation du requ�rant �tait fond�e est sans incidence � cet �gard, d�s lors que la Commission aurait pu donner un avis encore plus motiv� sur le fond si elle avait �t� mise en possession du rapport d�enqu�te final.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4471

Keywords:

final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;

Judgment keywords

Keywords:

absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;

Considerations 10-11

Extract:

[I]l est, en premier lieu, manifeste, d�une part, que le rapport d�enqu�te final, contrairement � ce qu�avait demand� le requ�rant � diverses reprises, ne lui a jamais �t� communiqu� dans le cadre de la proc�dure interne, fût-ce sous une forme anonymis�e, ce qui ne lui a pas permis de se faire entendre utilement et en toute connaissance de cause dans le cadre de cette proc�dure.
En effet, il r�sulte de la d�cision du Directeur g�n�ral du 27 mars 2020, par laquelle ce dernier a rejet� le recours interne introduit contre la d�cision de rejeter la premi�re plainte pour harc�lement en ce qu�elle �tait dirig�e contre M. P. H., que seules les conclusions du rapport d�enqu�te, figurant au point 5 de celui-ci, ont �t� communiqu�es au requ�rant, en annexe de cette d�cision, tandis que le Directeur g�n�ral s�est content�, dans la d�cision proprement dite, de faire �tat de ce que � les faits examin�s dans le cas du requ�rant n��taient pas constitutifs d�un harc�lement moral �. Si le Tribunal s�en r�f�re par ailleurs � ces conclusions du rapport d�enqu�te, force est de constater que celles-ci se limitent aux consid�rations suivantes : en premier lieu, � [l]a perception des faits donn�e par [le requ�rant] n�est pas en phase avec la perception qui en a �t� faite par M. [P.] H. et par tous les t�moins du MUAC [� Maastricht] qui ont �t� entendus. Les documents renvoient � des r�unions, � des appr�ciations et � des situations, mais ne permettent pas d��tablir l�existence d�une forme quelconque de harc�lement psychologique�; en deuxi�me lieu, �l�enqu�te n�a port� que sur un possible harc�lement psychologique de la part de M. [P.] H., �tant donn� que les enqu�trices n�avaient pas de mandat pour se prononcer sur un contexte plus large�; en troisi�me lieu, diverses observations formul�es par les enqu�trices concernant les modalit�s selon lesquelles �tait organis� le programme de recrutement de jeunes dipl�m�s par l�Organisation.
Le Tribunal consid�re qu�une communication aussi limit�e des conclusions du rapport d�enqu�te ne r�pond pas, � l��vidence, aux exigences pos�es par sa jurisprudence en la mati�re et qu�il s�ensuit que le requ�rant peut � juste titre faire valoir qu�il n�a pas �t� en mesure de v�rifier, m�me au stade de la proc�dure de recours interne, la teneur des d�clarations du pr�tendu harceleur et des t�moins, ni le s�rieux de l�enqu�te men�e (comparer, notamment, avec le jugement 4471, au consid�rants 14 et 23). Le Tribunal rappelle, en effet, que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, un fonctionnaire est, en r�gle g�n�rale, en droit d�avoir connaissance de toutes les pi�ces sur lesquelles l�autorit� comp�tente est appel�e � se fonder pour prendre une d�cision le concernant (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4739, au consid�rant 10 (et la jurisprudence cit�e), 4217, au consid�rant 4, 3995, au consid�rant 5, 3295, au consid�rant 13, 3214, au consid�rant 24, 2700, au consid�rant 6, ou 2229, au consid�rant 3 b)). Il en d�coule, en particulier, qu�une organisation est tenue de communiquer au fonctionnaire ayant d�pos� une plainte pour harc�lement le rapport �labor� � l�issue de l�enqu�te diligent�e en vue d�instruire cette plainte (voir, notamment, les jugements 4217, au consid�rant 4, 3995, au consid�rant 5, 3831, au consid�rant 17, et 3347, aux consid�rants 19 � 21).
L�Organisation fait valoir � ce sujet que le rapport complet de l�enqu�te est annex� � son m�moire en r�ponse et que cela est conforme � la jurisprudence du Tribunal sur ce point, en vertu de laquelle les motifs d�une d�cision peuvent r�sulter d�une autre proc�dure ou peuvent �tre communiqu�s � l�occasion d�une contestation ult�rieure (voir les jugements 3316, au consid�rant 7, 1757, au consid�rant 5, et 1590, au consid�rant 7).
Mais le Tribunal a d�j� rappel� � cet �gard que, s�il peut �tre admis que le d�faut de communication d�une pi�ce puisse �tre corrig�, dans certains cas, lorsqu�il y est rem�di� ult�rieurement, y compris � l�occasion de la proc�dure suivie devant lui (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4217, au consid�rant 4, et 3117, au consid�rant 11), une telle r�gularisation ne saurait �tre admise dans l�hypoth�se o� le document en cause rev�t, comme c�est le cas en l�esp�ce, une importance essentielle au regard de l�objet du litige (voir les jugements 4217, au consid�rant 4, 3995, au consid�rant 5, 3831, aux consid�rants 16, 17 et 29, 3490, au consid�rant 33, et 2315, au consid�rant 27).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739

Keywords:

confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;

Consideration 13

Extract:

Le Tribunal observe, en troisi�me lieu, que, bien que les deux �l�ments qui viennent d��tre expos�s aient, parmi d�autres, �t� express�ment relev�s par la Commission paritaire des litiges afin de conclure � l�unanimit�, dans son avis rendu le 24 janvier 2022, au caract�re fond� de la r�clamation introduite par le requ�rant, ces �l�ments n�ont �t� aucunement abord�s dans la motivation contenue dans la d�cision finale du Directeur g�n�ral du 12 mai 2022. Il y a donc lieu de consid�rer que la motivation qui figure dans cette d�cision n�est pas non plus ad�quate, au sens de la jurisprudence du Tribunal en la mati�re (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4700, au consid�rant 4 ; 4598, au consid�rant 12 ; 4400, au consid�rant 10 et 4062, au consid�rant 3).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4400, 4598, 4700

Keywords:

duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4819

138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste la d�cision de le mettre en �cong� administratif� par suite d�une r�organisation structurelle de l�Agence Eurocontrol, secr�tariat de l�Organisation, ayant engendr� la suppressionde ses fonctions et le lancement d�un processus de r�affectation, ainsi que la d�cision de rejeter ses all�gations de harc�lement moral.

Consideration 8

Extract:

S�agissant toujours des d�cisions qui lui ont �t� notifi�es le 5 juillet 2019, le requ�rant consid�re, en deuxi�me lieu, qu�elles reposeraient sur des motifs fallacieux. En effet, la r�organisation dite substantielle qu�aurait subie la Division NTS que dirigeait l�int�ress� ne serait que purement fictive, ses fonctions n�auraient en r�alit� pas �t� supprim�es, ainsi que cela lui avait �t� indiqu� lors de la r�union du 5 juillet 2019, et aucun autre membre du personnel de sa division n�aurait �t� r�ellement d�savantag� par la mise en place de la nouvelle Division Technologie. Il consid�re de m�me que, en aucun cas, une r�organisation devant �tre finalis�e en septembre 2019 ne pouvait donner lieu � la suppression de ses fonctions d�cid�e d�s le 5 juillet 2019, soit plus de trois mois auparavant. Dans ces conditions, le requ�rant estime qu�il n�a jamais �t� mis en mesure de conna�tre les v�ritables motifs qui ont pr�sid� � la suppression de ses fonctions, ce qu�ont par ailleurs relev� � l�unanimit� les membres de la Commission paritaire des litiges. L�int�ress� conteste � cet �gard point par point les divers motifs qui sont, tour � tour, invoqu�s par Eurocontrol, que ce soit dans les d�cisions du 5 juillet 2019 ou dans ses �critures devant le Tribunal, et rel�ve � cet �gard une contradiction dans les motifs successivement indiqu�s par l�Organisation.
Le Tribunal constate que, dans le m�morandum de la chef de l�Unit� des ressources humaines et services notifi� au requ�rant le 5 juillet 2019, il a, dans un premier temps, �t� fait �tat de ce que, � la suite de la r�organisation de l�Agence, la Division NTS allait dispara�tre, de m�me que les fonctions actuelles de l�int�ress�. Dans un deuxi�me temps, il a �t� indiqu�, dans un courriel du 8 ao�t 2019, qu�� la suite du regroupement de toutes les activit�s informatiques de l�Agence, la fonction de chef de la nouvelle Division Technologie �tait devenue une fonction substantiellement diff�rente de celle de chef de la Division NTS, du fait notamment que cette nouvelle division atteignait environ trois fois la taille de l�ancienne Division NTS. Enfin, dans un troisi�me temps, l�Agence a fait valoir que les changements organisationnels effectu�s en son sein n�cessitaient de nouvelles comp�tences pour les postes manag�riaux, tandis que le style de �leadership� souhait� et requis par le Directeur g�n�ral ne correspondait plus au profil du requ�rant, qui �tait plus un expert technique qu�un �leader�.
Ainsi, les justifications pr�cises donn�es au sujet des diff�rentes d�cisions notifi�es au requ�rant le 5 juillet 2019 ont �volu� dans le temps, au fur et � mesure des critiques formul�es par l�int�ress�. L�on est ainsi pass� d�une suppression pure et simple de ses fonctions � une modification substantielle des fonctions � exercer et, enfin, � une modification du style de �leadership� exig� de la part des titulaires de postes manag�riaux. Cela est d�autant plus regrettable que le requ�rant a clairement fait valoir, sans �tre contredit � ce sujet par Eurocontrol, d�une part, qu�il avait dirig�, de 2014 � 2017, la Division NTS, qui comptait d�j� environ 150 membres du personnel et au sein de laquelle l�ensemble des services informatiques de l�Agence �taient regroup�s avant qu�il ne soit d�cid� de les scinder et, en juillet 2019, de les regrouper � nouveau, et, d�autre part, que ses divers rapports d��valuation, notamment ceux portant sur cette p�riode, avaient toujours �t� tr�s positifs, notamment en ce qui concerne sa capacit� de �leadership�.
Il s�ensuit que les divers motifs sur lesquels sont cens�s reposer lesdites d�cisions ne peuvent �tre consid�r�s comme valables et suffisants au sens de la jurisprudence du Tribunal (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4467, au consid�rant 7, 4108, au consid�rant 3, et 1817, au consid�rant 7).
Le moyen ainsi soulev� est, en cons�quence, fond�.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4108, 4467

Keywords:

abolition of post; motivation; motivation of final decision; reorganisation;

Consideration 10

Extract:

Le Tribunal [�] se contentera [�] de relever que le Directeur g�n�ral n�a pas indiqu� de mani�re ad�quate, dans sa d�cision, les raisons pour lesquelles il s�est �cart� de l�avis unanime rendu par [la Commission paritaire des litiges], d�s lors qu�il n�y a pas examin� les motifs retenus par celle-ci.
La d�cision du Directeur g�n�ral [�] de rejeter la r�clamation introduite par le requ�rant [�] doit, en cons�quence, �tre annul�e.

Keywords:

motivation of final decision;
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;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

Last updated: 03.08.2024

^ top

Motivation of final decision (891,-666)

Judgment 4894

Consideration 5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4877

Consideration 12

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4865

Consideration 7

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4842

Consideration 6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4832

Considerations 31-33

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4820

Consideration 12

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment keywords

Keywords:

Considerations 10-11

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Consideration 13

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4819

Consideration 8

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Consideration 10

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4777

Consideration 3

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4762

Consideration 8

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment keywords

Keywords:

Judgment 4699

Consideration 11

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4662

Consideration 15

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4616

Consideration 9

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4598

Consideration 12

Extract:

Keywords: