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
Judgment 495
48th Session, 1982
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"If in the case of an active staff member no reason (*) is given, an inference could be drawn that his activities had been improperly taken into account."
(*) in the present case, for non-renewal
Keywords:
contract; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; presumption; staff union activity;
Judgment 474
47th Session, 1982
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Director-General's authority is not absolute. The Director-General seems to regard himself as entirely free to make what decisions he will and to believe "that he need not state the grounds for his decision either to the staff member or to the Tribunal. This view rests on an error of law [...] a decision [...] is in fact subject to review by the Tribunal. Although the Tribunal has only a limited power of review, it will so exercise it that the Director-General does not enjoy the unfettered authority he asserts. In assuming his decisions to be unchallengeable, the Director-General went beyond the limits of his discretionary authority, and this error of law alone affords grounds for allowing the complaint, at least in principle."
Keywords:
contract; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; flaw; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 448
46th Session, 1981
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under the material provisions, the Organization is not required to give reasons for its decision not to extend an appointment; if he so requests, an official can get an explanation from his supervisor. "The Tribunal may, however, exercise the power of review which it assumes in such cases only in the light of the grounds given for the decision to terminate the appointment, and if those grounds are not clear from the actual decision will seek to determine them from the other written evidence."
Keywords:
contract; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 397
43rd Session, 1980
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"One purpose of giving reasons for a decision is to enable the staff member to defend his rights before an appeals body."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; grounds; purpose; right to reply;
Judgment 361
41st Session, 1978
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"[I]f an unexplained decision is also apparently inexplicable, silence will provide a foundation for an inference that there must have been at work in the decision making some element, such as prejudice or a conclusion falsely drawn, which would require the Tribunal to interfere with the discretion. The Tribunal considers that an unexplained decision to remove the complainant after 12 days from an assignment that was clearly intended to last until the new appointment might well justify such an inference [...]."
Keywords:
assignment; bias; decision; duty to substantiate decision; flaw; grounds;
Judgment 337
40th Session, 1978
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
By the extension of his contract, "the complainant was actually given five months' notice and there is nothing in [the Regulations] which required the administration to tell him the reasons for not renewing his appointment, provided the reasons were not tainted with any of the flaws which enable the Tribunal to interfere".
Keywords:
contract; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; extension of contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Judgment 226
32nd Session, 1974
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
By Judgment No. 194, the Administrative Tribunal quashed as being based on insufficient grounds the decision not to confirm the complainant's appointment. In execution of that judgment an ad hoc committee was set up to examine the case. In the light of the very full report of that committee, "the Director-General took a considered decision in full knowledge of the facts. The organization has thus corrected the procedural irregularity which led to the quashing of the decision".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 194
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; confirmatory decision; duty to substantiate decision; execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; judgment of the tribunal; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 194
29th Session, 1972
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant's plea that the impugned decision should be quashed as being based on insufficient grounds succeeds. "[I]t is [...] for the Director-General to reopen the case and to consider, by such means as he may deem appropriate and after giving a hearing to [the complainant], whether the appraisal made by her immediate supervisor was well-founded and whether the non-confirmation of her appointment could legitimately be based on the provisions" cited.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 21
5th Session, 1955
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
On the substance (A)
Extract:
"Any unmotivated decision would not be subject to the general legal review which is vested in the Tribunal, and would be liable to become arbitrary."
At issue is the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract.
Keywords:
contract; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 19
5th Session, 1955
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration (A)
Extract:
Vide Judgment 21, consideration (a).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21
Keywords:
contract; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 18
5th Session, 1955
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration (A)
Extract:
Vide Judgment 21, consideration (a).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21
Keywords:
contract; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 17
5th Session, 1955
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
On the substance (A)
Extract:
Vide Judgment 21, consideration a.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21
Keywords:
contract; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 13
4th Session, 1954
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Director-General based his decision on the provision empowering him to dismiss at any time a probationer whose services are deemed unsatisfactory on condition that the reasons for the decision be given in writing. The internal appeals body believed that the provision on the interests of the organization afforded a further possible justification for the measure. The director confirmed the decision. "At that stage [...] a change of grounds would have vitiated the procedure".
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; enforcement; flaw; grounds; organisation's interest; probationary period; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 5
1st Session, 1947
International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Under the material provision only an official found "guilty" of misconduct may be dismissed. "[I]n order that an official may be considered as 'guilty', it is obviously necessary that he should be first informed in clear and precise terms of the grave charge against him and that he then have the possibility of defending himself before the competent authority before the latter takes its decision[.] [N]one of these conditions was fulfilled[.] [T]he [organisation] must therefore be charged with responsibility under this head".
Keywords:
decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; right to reply; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
|
