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 1996
89th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"In Judgment 1821 the Tribunal recalled that where a methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure (see Judgment 1682 [...]). [...] However, departure from the index given as an orientation in the Staff Regulations requires more than just a statement of proper reasons. In order to protect staff against arbitrariness, the criteria relied on to deviate from the orientation suggested by the external index must be objective, adequate and known to the staff (see Judgment 1912, under 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1682, 1821, 1912
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; burden of proof; criteria; duty to substantiate decision; interpretation; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1983
89th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As to the absence of one month's notice, [the organization] rightly points out that the obligation arising from the provisions of the Staff Regulations applies to dismissal and not to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment. Nonetheless, the case law says that an organisation must always give the reasons for a decision not to renew an appointment and those reasons must be notified to the staff member within a reasonable time."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; precedence of rules; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant asserts that the Ad Hoc Panel failed to give reasons for its opinion because it did not give a reasoned reply to his assertion that it had been improperly constituted. The argument is ill conceived. The obligation of a disciplinary body to give reasons for its opinions is limited to the disciplinary matters remitted to it. The reason is so that the person subjected to a disciplinary measure may know why a penalty is being imposed upon him and may, if he thinks appropriate, appeal against the decision. But an administrative body, such as the Ad Hoc Panel, has no power and hence no obligation to decide in any definitive way upon its own remit. Of course, it must listen attentively to any objections that are made to the effect that it is exceeding or is about to exceed its powers and must take a position on such objections by either continuing to act or changing its course of action. But in the final analysis, the decision as to whether such a body is acting within its powers or beyond them must lie elsewhere and a person in the complainant's position suffers no prejudice from its failure to give reasons for declining to accede to his objections."
Keywords:
abuse of power; advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; misconduct; misuse of authority; purpose; report;
Judgment 1911
88th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"It is a general principle of the international civil service that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract and that the reason must be given to the staff member [...]. An official whose fixed-term contract is reaching expiry must be informed in a timely manner of the real reasons for the decision not to renew it [...]. In this case a mere reference to a letter sent to the complainant nearly two years previously cannot, in the absence of any other indication as to the real reasons for the decision to be taken, exempt the observatory from stating the grounds clearly."
Keywords:
contract; date; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 1872
87th Session, 1999
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
This case is about a decision concerning termination of employment for unsatisfactory services.
"International officials have the right to be informed, from the beginning of the procedure, of the grounds which will serve as a basis for the administration's decision".
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1821
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organisations to set adjustments in staff pay [...] may be concisely stated as follows: (a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law [...]. (b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are 'stable, foreseeable and clearly understood' [...]. (c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure [...]. (d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable [...], the mere desire to save money at the staff's expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference [...]." (See cited case law.)
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; case law; condition; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; executive body; good faith; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 1817
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given his full say."
Keywords:
case pending; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1791
86th Session, 1999
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"In support of their plea that the impugned decision rested on wrong reasons and wrong conclusions [the complainants] contend that [the Organization] was mistaken in its explanation: there was in fact no financial crisis warranting a compulsory pay cut. [...] The plea fails. The evidence [...] shows that [the Organization's] member States had not been spared the economic and financial plight of Europe at the time and so were much less able to fund the Organization. That was why [...] they had to think again about the budget [...] and demand a big cut. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that [the Organization] did not give wrong reasons or draw any blatantly wrong conclusions."
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; grounds; mistaken conclusion; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1787
86th Session, 1999
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When a decision is adverse to a staff member the competent administrative authority does have to reveal the reasons for it. But when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly, when a choice is made between candidates the reasons for the choice need not be notified at the same time as the decision."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; time limit;
Judgment 1764
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[A]lthough in all fairness an organisation must tell the staff member of the charges against him, it need not go into the detail of the penalties he may be incurring. Besides, the complainant must be deemed to have been familiar with the [staff] rules, and they do set out all the penalties, including dismissal. The staff member's right to know and to answer the charges against him does not require that he be told just what the punishment may be if he is found guilty."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of loyalty; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; honesty; limits; organisation's duties; purport; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1757
85th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Transfer is such an important decision that it must be properly accounted for. For one thing, that helps the staff member to make up his mind about what to do, for example lodge an appeal; for another, it allows review of the lawfulness of the decision. Yet the reasons need not be stated in the actual text notifying transfer: they may have been conveyed beforehand or later, even in the course of internal appeal proceedings."
Keywords:
date; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; right of appeal; transfer;
Judgment 1750
85th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent does indeed have it that non-renewal and valid reasons for it must be duly notified so that the staff member may act accordingly and in particular exercise the right of appeal [...]. The case law does not require that the reasons be stated in the text that gives notice of non-renewal."
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; right of appeal;
Judgment 1729
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"It is a fundamental requirement of any decision to abolish a post that there be objective grounds for it: see Judgment 1231 [...]. The same principles apply to a decision to change the source of funding for a position."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231
Keywords:
abolition of post; amendment to the rules; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds;
Judgment 1724
84th Session, 1998
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"Article 3.10.4 of [IFAD's] Manual says that a decision to terminate the contract of employment of an official may be taken by the President, 'and the President alone', in the interests of the Fund. So it does vest discretion in the President to end an appointment in the Fund's interest without resort to disciplinary process. [...] Yet the Fund is mistaken [...] that the President has unfettered authority under the provision to cite the Fund's interests as grounds for dismissal. He must set out the facts fully enough to enable the Tribunal to exercise its power of review and to determine objectively whether it is indeed the Fund's interests that are the reason for the dismissal. As was held in Judgments 1234 [...] under 19 and 1496 [...] under 9, although an organization's 'own interests are paramount [...] it must still, for the sake of proper management and mutual confidence, treat its staff fairly."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.10.4 OF IFAD'S MANUAL
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234, 1496
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 1689
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Agency replies that [...] where candidates are found suitable and put on a par no explanation is called for, though 'a reasoned report would have made sense had the Board put the two candidates in order of preference'. The plea is unsound. It postulates that the complainant was unaffected by the finding that he was as fit for the post as the other candidate, and in any event overlooks the fact that the candidates are in competition. [...]. If two are ranked ex aequo each may have an interest in contending that the other should have been marked lower. [...]. In any event the final ranking [...] must be accounted for."
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition; duty to substantiate decision; selection board;
Judgment 1673
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The duty to explain a decision or a conclusion "will be discharged even if the reasons are stated in some other text to which there is express or even implied reference, for example where a higher authority endorses the reasoning of a lower one or a recommendation by some advisory body."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1590
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The rule that any decision adversely affecting a person shall state the grounds on which it was based requires "that he be aware of them so that he may - for one thing - challenge them on appeal. He may learn of them from some other document, or from prior proceedings, or orally, or even later in answer to his objections".
Keywords:
decision; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; purport; purpose; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1544
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A firm line of precedent has it that though a fixed-term appointment ends automatically at the scheduled date of expiry the staff member must be told of the true grounds for non-renewal and given reasonable notice of it even if the contract does not expressly so require."
Keywords:
case law; contract; date of notification; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization has "discharged its duty to take an express decision duly giving its reasons for not reinstating him. Its decision [not to reinstate him] takes seriatim all the posts he might have been appointed to. It explains the reasons of fact or law why it came to the view that his training, experience or grasp of languages or the need for special skills disqualified him for some posts. The reasons why he was not appointed to others had to do with the budget, some posts being 'frozen'. Or else the reasons were administrative: for example the Appointment and Promotion Board was not in favour, or the organization gave priority to a permanent employee."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; application for execution; budgetary reasons; due process; duration of appointment; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; knowledge of languages; organisation's duties; permanent appointment; priority; professional experience; promotion board; qualifications; refusal; reinstatement; selection board; training;
Judgment 1441
79th Session, 1995
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Although an explanation of the reasons for an administrative decision affords an essential safeguard of the staff member's rights, consistent precedent has it that the form the explanation takes will depend on the nature of the decision and the context in which it is taken. Here UNESCO is right in stating that each successive decision, from the provisional suspension from duty to the final act of dismissal, was taken in a context that the complainant was quite well aware of. The suspension came after the questioning of him by the inspectors; the dismissal after the report by the Disciplinary Committee; and the final confirmation of dismissal after the Appeals Board hearings. The text of each decision so explicitly cites the material background that he may not properly contend he was caught unawares or profess ignorance of the reasons for each decision and what it meant."
Keywords:
case law; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; purport; safeguard; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
