Duty to substantiate decision (30,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to substantiate decision
Total judgments found: 134
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 3903
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 21-22
Extract:
It is also well settled in the case law that reasons must be given for every administrative decision affecting a staff member’s rights (see, for example, Judgments 2124, under 3, 3041, under 9, and 3617, under 5). As the underlying rationale for the requirement to give reasons is to safeguard the staff member’s rights, the obligation to give reasons is not satisfied by simply stating the statutory ground upon which the decision is taken. The reasons must give an explanation for the decision itself. A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that the staff member can evaluate whether it should be challenged. As well, an internal appeal body must also know the reasons to determine whether the decision is lawful, as must the Tribunal in order to exercise its power of review (Judgment 3617, under 5).
In the present case, the failure to give reasons led to confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the nature of the decision. Further, the absence of reasons for the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment left the complainant guessing about the reasons for the decision and impeded his ability to challenge it. Alone, this violation of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules warrants that the impugned decision be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2124, 3041, 3617
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; termination of employment;
Judgment 3863
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
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.
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3442
119th Session, 2015
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The foregoing events reflect a fundamental flaw in that aspect of the impugned decision. The chain of relevant decisions that were maintained or reconfirmed goes back to the initial decision of 3 August 2010 that the requests contained in the letter of 12 May 2010 were not receivable. With respect, that could not properly have been the decision on the referral of the “new claim” that was specifically circumscribed by the Director-General in order that the ABCC consider a discreet issue which had not been considered or determined before. It was therefore necessary for the Director-General to motivate the decision specifically as it related to the “new claim”, which had not previously been dismissed as irreceivable. His failure to do so is sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned decision insofar as it was concerned with the complainant’s third internal appeal."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; new claim;
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.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has noted, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants (see Judgment 2781). 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 decision-making."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042
Keywords:
bias; case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; refusal; safeguard;
Judgment 3193
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose;
Judgment 3161
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him which, in his view, violates his status as an employee.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"[T]he task of the Internal Appeals Committee is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made. While provisions establishing an internal appeal committee or board may limit its functions, this is not the case in relation to this Internal Appeals Committee established under the Service Regulations applying to the permanent employees of the EPO.
Of course the authority of the Internal Appeals Committee is limited to making recommendations and, to that extent, the ultimate decision-making power remains, in a case such as the present, with the President of the Office. However, the President is obliged to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Committee and not avoid addressing the reasoning of its members by wrongly indicating, as in this case, that the majority of the Committee’s members had exceeded the limits of their role in determining the appeal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; case law; decision; decision-maker; due process; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 3128
113th Session, 2012
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant is [...] entitled to moral damages in the amount of 5,000 [Swiss] francs for the failure of the Executive Board to provide reasons for its decision to reject his appeal."
Keywords:
breach; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; grounds; internal appeal; moral injury; refusal;
Judgment 3120
113th Session, 2012
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047
Keywords:
date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; medical records; no provision; official; organisation's duties; refusal; right;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of appointment following reorganisation / Failure on the part of the Organization to take a final decision on the complainant's appeal / Excessive delay in communicating to the complainant the outcome of the internal appeal procedure.
"The decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual's rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment."
Keywords:
abolition of post; complainant; decision; duty of care; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; right; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2991
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person's work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; formal requirements; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 2982
110th Session, 2011
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[The complainant] was replaced virtually immediately even though his contract had somewhat less than two months to run [...] and he had earlier been told that he was to be provided with assistance for the project; he was given no warning of the decision; he was not heard on the question and adequate reasons were not provided. Replacing the complainant in these circumstances constituted '[a]ctions [...] directed at actively damaging [his] personal and/or professional reputation' and, thus, falls within the definition of 'harassment' in General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IOM General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; reassignment; warning;
Judgment 2978
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, 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 (see Judgments 1787, under 5, and 2035, under 4). These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of appeal proceedings (see Judgments 1590, under 7, and 2194, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1787, 2035, 2194
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; date of notification; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; grounds;
Judgment 2924
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An error of reasoning establishes neither ill will nor a breach of the duty of care, particularly when the actual decision is correct."
Keywords:
breach; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; mistaken conclusion; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2877
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
In their capacity as staff representatives, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee. The Tribunal held that to the extent that the new specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office it should have been referred to the General Advisory Committee.
"It is trite law 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 Judgment 2339, under 5). It is equally well established that if reasons are required, the reasons must be sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible so that a complainant knows why the appeal has been rejected and he is in a position to assess whether a complaint should be filed with the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; right; staff member's interest;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"On the substantive issues raised before the Appeals Committee, as the Administrative Council rejected the only recommendation favourable to the complainants, it was only obliged to give reasons on this point. However, on the question of costs, the Appeals Committee recommended the payment of compensation for the assistance provided by Professor K. H. The Council did not deal with this recommendation. The Organisation argues that rejecting the appeal on the substance meant also rejecting the recommendation as to costs. This argument is dismissed. The Organisation's position is premised on an award of costs to the successful party always following the event. While this is the usual outcome, it is not always the case. In the appropriate circumstances, there is no legal principle that automatically precludes an award of costs to an unsuccessful party. Accordingly, the Council also had to give reasons for not accepting the Appeals Committee's recommendation on this point."
Keywords:
counsel; decision; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 2869
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, a staff union representative, challenged the Agency's decision not to promote him in the course of the 2007 promotion exercise. He claimed that he was among the most senior staff eligible for promotion and that the Administration had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal found in his favour.
"[T]he present situation has the appearance of an abuse of discretion. The complainant's situation is extreme (i.e. being promoted much less frequently than the average) yet there has been no valid reason given for the continued nonpromotion. According to Eurocontrol's reasoning, without a breach of procedure or obvious flaw, the Agency does not have to explain its decisions. This is not correct. Precedent has it that "there is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound" (see Judgment 1355, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1355
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union activity;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"While a decision to reassign a staff member may be based on multiple factors, it is evident [...] that «capacity strengthening» was not the real reason for the reassignment. [M]isinforming the complainant of the reason for the reassignment reflects a disregard for her dignity."
Keywords:
assignment; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]t cannot be said that the Organization engaged in any meaningful consultation with the complainant regarding her reassignment. Providing her with Terms of Reference for a post that she did not know was intended for her, arranging for a meeting with her proposed new Director without being informed of her planned transfer, and a meeting with the Regional Director when the decision had already been taken does not constitute proper consultation."
Keywords:
assignment; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; terms of appointment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is clear that in accordance with Staff Regulation 1.1 staff members are subject to the authority of the Director-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Organization. Further, under Staff Rule 565.2 a staff member may be reassigned at any time in the interest of the Organization. However, in the exercise of the discretion to reassign a staff member, the Organization must take into account the interests and dignity of the staff member, including the provision of work of the same level as that which was performed in the former post and matching the staff member's qualifications, and care must be taken not to cause undue injury to the staff member (see Judgments 2067, under 17, 2191, under 3, and 2229, under 3). Moreover, the staff member is entitled to be informed of the reasons for the reassignment. In addition to ensuring transparency in decision making, providing the reasons for the reassignment permits a staff member to assess the courses of action that may be taken, including the lodging of an appeal, and it also permits a review of the lawfulness of the decision on appeal (see Judgment 1757, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1757, 2067, 2191, 2229
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"While a candidate is entitled to know the reasons for the rejection of his own candidacy, this does not extend to access to the Selection Board's consideration of the merits of other candidates."
Keywords:
candidate; duty of discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; organisation's duties; selection board;
Judgment 2833
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Director-General departed from the Joint Advisory Appeals Board's recommendation. He was entitled to do so provided that he gave clear reasons for not following it, which he did. [...] From a formal point of view, therefore, the impugned decision is beyond criticism."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; formal requirements; grounds; internal appeals body; recommendation; right;
Judgment 2811
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to challenge the Director-General's decision before the Headquarters Board of Appeal. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that, bearing in mind the purely advisory nature of this body, the Director-General could have confirmed her initial decision, no matter what recommendation was made to her.
"The fact that the recommendations of the Board of Appeal are not binding on the decision-making authority does not mean that they have no weight in the internal appeals procedure, since the Director-General has a legal duty to give such recommendations due consideration and, according to the Tribunal's case law, can lawfully depart from them only for clear and cogent reasons."
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
