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 1395
78th Session, 1995
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed under Staff Rule 2.6.01 which says that "appointments shall terminate on account of [...] g) dismissal for specified reasons of unsuitability." The Tribunal holds that this means, "first that the reasons must be 'specified' in some form that enables the staff member to understand them clearly and, secondly, that the statement of them must be prior to the actual dismissal. It is, after all, a general principle of law that the staff member must be afforded a proper opportunity, again prior to dismissal, to answer any allegations of unsuitability."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: EMBL'S STAFF RULE 2.6.01
Keywords:
due process; duty to substantiate decision; flaw; general principle; organisation's duties; reinstatement; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1390
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"To what extent must an administration substantiate its decisions? The answer is that it depends on the sort of decision that is to be substantiated. In the present case a distinction must be drawn between the rejection of an external application, particularly where a competition has attracted many candidates, and the rejection of an application by a serving official. In the latter case the organisation has a duty to maintain the relations of trust it has with the staff member, and although it must remain free to choose how it will notify the reasons to him it must be wary of damaging his career prospects."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; internal candidate; organisation's duties; purport; refusal; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1384
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has consistently affirmed - more recently, for example, in Judgment 1317 [...], under 24 and 28 - an organisation is required to give a reason for [the] non-renewal [of a fixed-term appointment]".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 1369
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"The duty to explain a decision is a general principle of administrative law: the decision-maker must at least give such statement of the reasons for the decision that anyone it affects may defend his rights and the Tribunal may rule on any case before it. But the content of the duty will vary with the nature of the decision."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; general principle; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; purport; right of appeal; right to reply;
Consideration 30
Extract:
Ever since Eurocontrol signed an agreement with the union "the staff have had access through their representatives to the relevant information and have been able to look at proposals in close cooperation with management and in keeping with the procedure for consultation. The organisation was therefore not required to state again reasons which it had already revealed in the consultations."
Keywords:
collective bargaining; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; limits; procedure before the tribunal; staff union; staff union agreement;
Consideration 31
Extract:
"The duty to explain a decision differs in content when an organisation takes over as a whole the decisions on pay that another one - in this instance the [European] Communities - has already adopted. [...] So on falling into line with the Communities Eurocontrol had no further obligation to give an explanation especially since it was the staff themselves who had been demanding alignment."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; law of european communities; limits; organisation's interest; rule of another organisation; salary; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1367
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11 and 16
Extract:
"The dispute is about the time in which a staff member of WHO may exercise his right to removal of his household effects at the organization's expense upon retirement. [...] The Director-General's decision is arbitrary, not just because it fails to state the reasons for choosing the [...] new deadline for the refund of the costs of removal, but because it gives no consistent reply to the complainant's claim. It is a wrong exercise of discretion."
Keywords:
bias; breach; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; refund; removal expenses; time limit;
Judgment 1355
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law - especially Judgment 1235 [...] - the Director-General is not bound by the appointment and Promotion Committee's recommendations and in particular need not appoint the candidate the Committee has put first. In the exercise of discretion, he must ensure that his choice is not tainted with any mistake of law or fact and, to allow the tribunal to exercise its power of review, he must state the reasons for his decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1235
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; promotion board;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"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."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; decision; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; grounds; judicial review; no provision; official; organisation's duties; post; promotion; refusal; request by a party; subsidiary; written rule;
Judgment 1328
76th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"As for [WIPO's] failure to take the 'new decision' ordered in point 2 [of the operative part of the judgment whose application is sought], it is in breach of good faith in forcing the complainant to the point of appealing against a refusal he has to infer from its own silence. Under point 2 it is required to give him an express and properly substantiated decision on the matter of reinstatement".
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; express decision; good faith; implied decision; organisation's duties; reinstatement;
Judgment 1317
76th Session, 1994
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
The organisation says that the non-renewal of the complainant's appointment was warranted by restructuring operations in its regional offices. "The duty to state the reasons for a decision forms part of any due administrative process. The Tribunal is not questioning that there was an objective need for the reforms the Union brought in [but] the Union ought to have explained to him why the reforms warranted removing him. It did not. The ITU ignored a long line of precedents on non-renewal procedure."
Keywords:
case law; contract; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; reorganisation;
Consideration 24
Extract:
Several recent rulings [...] sharply define the ambit of such review in line with the case law affirmed from the outset: see Judgments 956 [...] under 2 and 3; 1262 [...] under 4; and 1273 [...] under 8.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 956, 1262, 1273
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; contract; decision; discretion; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's interest; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 1313
76th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
In an earlier judgment the Tribunal ordered the WHO to reinstate the complainant or, failing that, to pay him compensation. The WHO paid him the compensation after stating in a letter to him that it was unable to reinstate him. "The letter [...] does not say why reinstating him proved impossible. It is mere notification, not an explanation [...] its decision not to reinstate him therefore cannot stand."
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; material damages; refusal; reinstatement; subsidiary;
Judgment 1298
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1154, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1289
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has said before, many decisions by international organisations that prompt complaints are unsubstantiated. Yet the staff member is still able to defend his rights. Though not stated in the actual text, the reasons for the decision may be discerned from earlier correspondence between the parties or in the last resort from the organization's brief in reply to the complaint, which the staff member may comment on in his rejoinder. Unless there is express derogation the rule is that the organization need not, if that is not its practice, state the reasons for all its decisions: what matters is that the absence of a statement should not be to the staff member's detriment."
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; duty to substantiate decision; injury; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; practice; rejoinder; reply; right to reply;
Judgment 1273
75th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A decision not to renew an appointment, though discretionary, must be taken for proper reasons that are notified to the staff member. It will be unlawful if it was not taken by the competent authority and in line with the set rules of procedure, if there was a mistake of law or of fact or abuse of authority, or if some clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
abuse of power; competence; contract; decision; decision-maker; discretion; due process; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1242
74th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant submits that the organization did not do its utmost to reinstate him in execution of Judgment 1154. WIPO's letter "does not substantiate the contention that it had. it simply conveys the Director General's decision 'not to extend [the complainant]'s appointment'. It says nothing of any attempts to find him a suitable position and thereby discharge its primary obligation under Judgment 1154. [...] The Director General had the duty to justify his decision by explaining why it was impossible to reinstate the complainant [...] only in its reply to this complaint does the organization maintain that 'there was no possibility of reinstating the complainant since there was no suitable post to which he could be appointed given his qualifications'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal; reinstatement; reply; res judicata; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1235
74th Session, 1993
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Although the Director-General is not of course bound to appoint the candidate the Committee puts first and has discretion in making the choice, the reasons for his decision must be stated so that the Tribunal may properly exercise its power of review."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; promotion board; purpose;
Judgment 1234
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant, an official at grade D.2, was moved twice in 18 months but given no explanation for the moves. His second transfer was to a post at a lower grade, some distance from headquarters and in a field he had never worked in. "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."
Keywords:
discretion; downgrading; duty to substantiate decision; grade; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; transfer;
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant, an official at grade D.2, was moved twice in 18 months but given no explanation for the transfers. His second move was to a post at a lower grade, at some distance from headquarters and in a field he had never worked in. The organization pleads that his transfer was "in the interests of the organization" and that the burden is on him to show that it was not. "But there it betrays a deeply mistaken view of its duty. Of course its own interests are paramount, but it must still, for the sake of proper management and mutual confidence, treat its staff fairly. If it is transferring a staff member it must let him have a degree of responsibility corresponding to his grade and respect his dignity. It must give him a statement of the reasons for the transfer and the opportunity of responding."
Keywords:
burden of proof; downgrading; duty to substantiate decision; grade; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; respect for dignity; right to reply; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 1231
74th Session, 1993
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of a decision to dismiss him following the abolition of his post. The only grounds given for his dismissal are "just a broad allusion to the organization's 'service requirements' or 'interests'. Such terms are meaningless unless there is a fuller explanation enabling the staff member and, if need be, the Tribunal to grasp the actual reasons, especially where the outcome is as drastic as abolition of post and dismissal."
Keywords:
abolition of post; decision; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; purport; staff member's interest; termination of employment;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 33 to 36
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, is challenging the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post on the grounds that the decision was not substantiated. "Mutual trust between organisation and staff requires that in such circumstances the applicants should be properly informed of the decision and of the reasons for it. of course the content of the obligation [...] will depend on the sort of decision that has been taken. [...] The principle holds good: the organisation has a duty to state the reasons for the decision, that being an essential condition for proper defence of the official's rights. The staff member is therefore entitled to be given any information necessary for that purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
competition; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; promotion; purport; purpose; refusal; right to reply;
Judgment 1204
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainants object to a decision denying them so-called "out-of-career" promotions. They submit that the original decisions were taken for an unlawful reason of principle and that the organization later confirmed the decisions on quite different grounds. The organization says it merely exercised the discretion inherent in managerial prerogative and did not alter the original reasons but merely added to them. "Although the competent authority has discretion to grant or refuse the promotion of staff who qualify under the material rules, it must abide by the rules, and whatever decisions it takes will be subject to judicial review [...] so as to determine whether they pass muster the rules have to be known to everyone and an organisation may not go beyond the duly published texts and resort to secret provisions that change the thrust of the ones it intended to treat as binding. Before it takes its discretionary decision, it must compare the merits of all staff who qualify under the rules [...] CERN committed two mistakes of law. One was to apply to the complainants rules that had never been published and that it regarded as binding. The other was to defend its position ex post facto by saying that its reasons for rejecting the complainants' claims were connected with their performance, though there is no evidence of any comparative and analytical assessment of the kind that international officials are entitled to."
Keywords:
applicable law; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; judicial review; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; publication; refusal;
Judgment 1162
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
The complainant objects to two written warnings she got. The reason the FAO gives for them was her failure to maintain "harmonious working relationships", which is one of the cases mentioned in Manual paragraph 314.221. "Such a reason affords a sound basis in law for the warnings and is in itself sufficient provided that it rests on true allegations of fact. The complainant is therefore mistaken in her view that there must also have been [others] since the only grounds given for the warnings are factually correct and warrant the impugned decisions, the complainant's objections must fail."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 314.221
Keywords:
accumulation; condition; conduct; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; warning;
Judgment 1154
72nd Session, 1992
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It is a general principle of international civil service that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment and that the reason must be given to the staff member. That principle was set out, for example, in Judgment 675 [...] in 10 and 11."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 675
Keywords:
case law; contract; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
