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 2803
106th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Although the Director-General will ordinarily be treated as the best judge of what the Organization's interests are and the Tribunal will not ordinarily interfere in his assessment of them, nevertheless it will do so in this case. It is quite inadequate to plead that the decision to transfer the complainant was "in the interests of the Organization". The basis for reaching that conclusion must be made clear so that the Tribunal may exercise its power of review and determine whether there exists any of the grounds for setting aside a discretionary decision of that kind."
"In the present case, [...] the Tribunal considers that the Organization's clear explanation of the reasons for the complainant's transfer enabled it to conduct a review [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post;
Judgment 2767
106th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
"The Director-General did not rely on any special feature of the case in order to justify his refusal to follow the recommendation of the Board [to inform the complainant of the names of the IRG members who had examined her case]. In this respect, the argument that the complainant did in fact find out who was on the IRG panel at the hearing on 7 July 2006 is inoperative [...]. It must be concluded that the Director-General refused without good reason to rectify a procedural flaw by not informing the complainant of the identity of the IRG members."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; organisation's duties; recommendation; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2699
104th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that when rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeals body that favours a complainant, the final decision-maker must give clear and cogent reasons for such a decision (see Judgments 2092, 2261, 2347 and 2355)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; recommendation; refusal;
Judgment 2515
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The decision to advertise the complainant's post [...] was in substance a decision to dismiss him from that post. No reason was ever provided for that decision [...] In the circumstances, it must be concluded that the decision resulted from the management review [conducted by the Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department]. In this regard, it is necessary only to observe that that review involved a denial of due process in that the complainant was not told precisely who had criticised his performance or conduct, nor was he told exactly what they had said. Moreover, he was not given an opportunity to question them or to rebut what was put against him. The decision to dismiss him from his post thus involved a serious breach of the requirements of due process."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; competition; contract; decision; due process; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; post; post held by the complainant; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Deputy Director General submitted a memorandum requesting one-year extensions of contract for the complainant and six other officials who had reached the statutory age of retirement. The Director General dealt with all seven requests. Three were granted. In the complainant's case, the request for extension was simply turned down without any reason being given. The Tribunal recalls its case-law according to which a provision such as Staff Regulation 4.05 gives the Director General a wide measure of discretion and the Tribunal will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion except in extremely limited circumstances. The Tribunal recently confirmed as much in Judgment 2377, which also concerns the IAEA retirement policy. That case is not authority, however, for the proposition that the power to extend appointments beyond normal retirement age can be exercised arbitrarily. In the present case, "[i]t is impossible to conclude other than that the decision in the complainant's case was made for some undisclosed or purely arbitrary reason. Therefore, it cannot stand."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.05
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377
Keywords:
age limit; bias; case law; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2406
98th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]he defendant is right to point out that the complainant held only fixed-term expert's contracts [and] that he had no right to renewal [...]. Nevertheless, the decision not to renew his contract should be based on valid reasons."
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; right;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complainant; delay; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; post; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2391
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
breach; consequence; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;
Judgment 2381
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is for complainants to put forward specific arguments in support of their complaints, concisely and precisely, so that the Tribunal may rule on their claims in full knowledge of the facts."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 2355
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2339
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement that where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated. ([...] see Judgments 2092, 2261 [...], 2347 and 2355.) It is not enough for the decision maker - in this case the President of the Office - simply to state that he is not convinced by the recommendation or to refer in general terms to the arguments presented by the Administration before the appeal body. Such statements do not adequately inform either the employee or the Tribunal as to the real reasons underlying the impugned decision. Nor do they show that the decision maker has properly fulfilled his duty to apply his own mind to the questions raised on the appeal and to give his own reasons for concluding as he has. It is not enough simply to endorse in broad terms all that the Administration, which, like the appellant, is subordinate to the President, has presented before the appeal body. The President is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and he must be, and be seen to be, objective and impartial. At the very least, where it is intended to place reliance on arguments which are more fully set forth in some other document, that document must be precisely identified and a copy of the relevant passages should accompany the decision itself and be specifically endorsed as representing the President's own considered opinion which has been reached after the appellant's arguments have been placed before him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; refusal; report;
Judgment 2278
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the titular head of the very administration whose conduct is being called into question, the President of the Office must be scrupulous in the performance of his function as final decision-maker in internal appeals. It is his duty not only to be fair and objective; his conduct must also make it manifest that he has been so. It is not enough to state, as the President appears to do in the impugned decision, that he thinks the administration has put forward the better case. That is not a reason but a conclusion. The internal appellate process is designed and intended to provide fair, satisfactory and rapid resolution of staff grievances in international organisations."
Keywords:
bias; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; internal appeal; organisation's duties; purpose; safeguard;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly stressed the necessity for administrative decisions to be properly supported by reasons. That is especially the case where, after an elaborate internal appeal procedure in which each side has filed extensive and detailed pleadings, the executive head of an international organisation, acting in a quasi judicial capacity and as the penultimate arbiter of disputes between the administration and the staff, decides not to accept the recommendation of the internal appellate body. In Judgment 2092, under 10, the Tribunal said:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 2264
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(e)
Extract:
"In his written submissions [to the Tribunal] the complainant refers in part to explanations he provided in other documents. Under article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, the arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself (supplemented, if need be, by the rejoinder). Those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, since this would be contrary to the provisions of the Rules and would not enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend the complainant's pleas with sufficient ease and clarity. Consequently, the complainant's references are acceptable only as illustrations, but not as an extension of the arguments contained in the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(1)(B) OF THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
Judgment 2261
95th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
The complainant challenges a disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct based on the following three charges: (1) external commercial activities and misrepresentation, (2) disloyalty, and (3) insubordination. In the challenged decision, the Director-General refused to follow the Appeals Committee's recommendation to the effect that the three charges be dismissed and confirmed the dismissal, dealing in detail with the first charge. Although the Tribunal acknowledges that the evidence justifies the Director-General's position, it sets aside the impugned decision because "the Director-General entirely failed to give any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the Committee's recommendations respecting the second and third charges". The Tribunal adds that "it is not for [...] itself [to] examine the evidence to find justification for the unmotivated decision of the Director-General. [...] Nor should it condone the organization's failure to bring the internal appeal process to a timely and proper conclusion effectively depriving the complainant of both his remedy and his employment for over three years. Accordingly, it will quash the penalty on the first charge only and refer the matter back to the Director-General for a new decision on the penalty after giving the complainant full opportunity to make representations."
Keywords:
concurrent employment; conduct; decision; disciplinary measure; due process; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; fitness for international civil service; insubordination; internal appeal; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; refusal; report; right of appeal; right to reply; separation from service; termination of employment; time limit;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [state] that, according to the Tribunal's case law (see Judgment 1821, for example), adjustments to international civil servants' salaries must satisfy objective criteria of stability, foreseeability and transparency. The Tribunal considers that this line of precedent - concerning the determination of staff salaries, which is necessarily governed by very strict rules - is not entirely applicable to the determination of allowances granted for a specific purpose, such as that of covering expenses incurred by staff members on travel status. Even if it claims to be acting in the exercise of its discretion, and although the legal framework surrounding its action remains vague or non-existent, the administration must base its decisions on objective considerations and avoid breaching any of the guarantees protecting the independence of international civil servants."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; allowance; analogy; breach; case law; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; criteria; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; independence; no provision; official; official travel; organisation's duties; purpose; safeguard; salary; travel expenses; written rule;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2121
93rd Session, 2002
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 14
Extract:
The recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel not to renew the complainant's contract was followed. She submits that "at no time was she given a reason for the decision not to renew her appointment. The failure to cite a reason runs counter to principles embodied in a series of Tribunal judgments [...] to state that another body has recommended against renewal, without stating why, is not enough to satisfy the Tribunal that a reason for such non-renewal was given."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory body; case law; complainant; contract; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; general principle; grounds; iloat; non-renewal of contract; recommendation;
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2090
92nd Session, 2002
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation asserts that "Article 1010.1 allows it to terminate an appointment by giving one month's notice per year of service [...] The Tribunal observes that [...] 1010.1 may not be interpreted as authorising [the organisation] to terminate [fixed- term] contracts arbitrarily. Decisions of this kind must be based on unsatisfactory performance, or the interests of the service. Furthermore, there must be no breach of adversarial procedure nor any error of fact or of law, nor abuse of authority, nor obvious misappraisal of the facts."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 1010.1 OF THE IFRC STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
abuse of power; adversarial proceedings; bias; contract; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; notice; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; provision; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2060
91st Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that the decision not to shortlist him was not adequately explained. But the plea cannot succeed. Precedent has it that when an organisation informs candidates that they have been unsuccessful, it must take care not to harm their prospects. Moreover, in announcing the results of a competition and, more generally when the administration has to choose between several candidates, as here, the reasons for the choice need not be given at the same time as the decision. It is enough for the reasons to be given in some later procedure (see Judgments 1990 and 2035 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2035
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competition; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; refusal; respect for dignity;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
