Motivation (669,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation
Total judgments found: 113
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4640
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a series of management acts regarding his administrative status.
Consideration 12
Extract:
On the question of delay and remedy, the Vice-President of DG4 arguably was obliged to explain why he favoured the approach of the minority and did not favour the approach of the majority (see Judgments 4427, consideration 9, and 3161, consideration 7) and did not do so adequately. However, it is unnecessary to determine this conclusively because the complainant has failed to establish moral injury occasioned by the delay which would justify an amount exceeding the amount actually awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 4427
Keywords:
moral injury; motivation;
Judgment 4625
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that [the] reasoning is adequate in that it allows the complainant to understand the reasons why the successful candidate was selected, even if she does not agree with them. This is especially so since this case involves a decision relating to a competition procedure, for which the authority competent to make the appointment has a broad discretion, and it is moreover possible for the organisation to clarify the reasons for its choice at a later stage in the light of the specific grievances expressed by a candidate who considers her- or himself to have been adversely affected by the decision (see, in particular, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4259, consideration 6, 4081, consideration 5, 2978, consideration 4, and 2060, consideration 7(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2978, 4081, 4259, 4467
Keywords:
competition; motivation;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that, except in special circumstances, an organisation is not required to state the reasons why it chooses to fill a post using a particular type of competition.
Keywords:
competition; motivation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established by the case law that how extensive the reasons need to be will depend on the circumstances of each case (see, in particular, Judgments 4164, consideration 11, 4081, consideration 5, 4037, consideration 7, and 1817, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4037, 4081, 4164
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 4624
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant takes issue with the type of contract successively awarded to her by the ILO and seeks adequate compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant [...] contends that the Director-General’s decision did not adequately justify the amount of compensation awarded, since that amount was not broken down between the various injuries for which compensation was awarded.
However, the Tribunal considers that it is permissible for an international organisation to decide to award a lump sum in compensation for all injuries suffered by a member of its staff.
Keywords:
allowance; damages; motivation;
Judgment 4593
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, as it stated in Judgment 4164, consideration 11, “[i]t is well established by the case law that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the staff member concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; that they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4164
Keywords:
motivation;
Judgment 4591
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the reduction in the amount of his functional allowance calculated in proportion to the reduction in his working hours.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant also complains that no explanation was provided to him with his payslip [...].
The Tribunal considers, however, [...] that an automatic decision, such as that to reduce the amount of an [...] allowance, is simply the consequence of putting into practice the change in the complainant’s working hours to which he had agreed and that the applicable rules are sufficiently clear. There is therefore no requirement for the Organisation to provide a more detailed formal explanation than that which appeared on the payslip sent to the complainant [...]. By reading that payslip, the complainant was able to understand that the amount of his allowance had been reduced by 20 per cent. It was therefore open to him to familiarise himself with the relevant provisions and, if necessary, to request further information in that regard.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; payslip;
Judgment 4586
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to convert his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for misconduct against him, as well as the overall length of his suspension.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The reasons given for the suspension without pay from 26 March 2019, and in effect the reason for transforming the suspension as one with pay to one without pay, was [...] that: “[t]he various interviews that have been conducted by OIG, including with you, and the strong evidence gathered thus far in the course of the investigation have reinforced the credibility of the allegations raised against you” and later: “the elements gathered by OIG [...] reinforce[d] the credibility of the allegations raised against you”. The letter of 26 March 2019 does not refer to the requirement in the rules that suspension without pay can only occur if the Director General (or a person acting on delegation) considers there are exceptional circumstances. But it can reasonably be inferred that the additional elements just quoted were viewed as constituting exceptional circumstances. The legal question which then arises is whether it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to form that opinion. The word “exceptional”, in this context, denotes circumstances which are beyond, and probably well beyond, circumstances which might simply justify suspension with pay. But apart from that, the expression “exceptional circumstances” is an expression of great width. It must be borne in mind that the power to suspend does not simply arise in circumstances where allegations of serious misconduct are being investigated or pursued in disciplinary proceedings (as it does in some other organisations’ rules). The power to suspend as expressly conferred by IOM’s rules can be exercised in relation to any conduct which might lead to a disciplinary sanction which could include alleged minor transgressions. But, of course, questions of proportionality can arise as discussed in consideration 8 [...]. Moreover, under Rule 10.3(d) a person suspended without pay is entitled to receive pay withheld if the allegations against the staff member were not substantiated or later found not to warrant summary dismissal. In this respect, the Rule itself ameliorates what otherwise might be viewed as the severe effect of suspension without pay. What, in substance, the letter of 26 March 2019 was saying was that the case against the complainant involving the receipt of corrupt payments of approximately 600,000 United States dollars (and solicited by him) was one where there was a much-increased measure of certainty, in the eyes of the Organization, that in fact corrupt payments in this amount had been received. If proved it would be a gross misconduct of the most egregious kind and almost certainly criminal behaviour. The decision-maker was entitled, in the Tribunal’s view, to treat the highly likely fact that the complainant had received corrupt payments in this amount solicited by him, as giving rise to exceptional circumstances in all the circumstances.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; suspension without pay;
Judgment 4565
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of downgrading for having engaged in gainful employment while on non-active status without prior authorisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In the impugned decision […], the President was […] following the Committee’s conclusions (including that the complainant had acted in good faith) and recommendation which, in turn, was based, […] on a balanced and thoughtful consideration by the Committee of all the circumstances. In such a case, an executive head does not need to fully motivate acceptance and adoption of the conclusions and applicable recommendation (see Judgment 4044, consideration 7), particularly bearing in mind that the imposition of a disciplinary measure involves the exercise of a wide discretionary power (see Judgment 4460, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4044, 4460
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4543
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which “the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations” (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[M]erely informing an international civil servant that disciplinary proceedings have been started against a supervisor
following an investigation into a complaint of harassment and that appropriate managerial measures have been taken [...] does not enable that civil servant to know whether the harassment she or he alleges has been recognised and, if so, how the organisation concerned intends to compensate her or him for the material or moral injury suffered (see, to that effect, Judgment 3965, consideration 9).
[...]
[T]he staff member who engaged the procedure, while not entitled to be informed of any measures taken against the alleged harasser, is entitled to a decision on the question of harassment itself (see [...] Judgment 3096, consideration 15) and, in consequence, to receive a reply from the administration concerning her or his harassment complaint (see, to that effect, Judgment 4207, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3096, 3965, 4207
Keywords:
harassment; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4504
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote her from grade P4 to grade P3 for a period of two years.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Inasmuch as the Appeal Board’s role in an internal appeal is an advisory one, the Director General may depart from its recommendations provided that she or he must state clear and cogent reasons for doing so (see, for example, Judgment 2699, consideration 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699
Keywords:
disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; final decision; motivation;
Judgment 4503
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Organization complied with its duty of care. The complainant was given five months’ notice of the non-renewal of her contract; the expiry of the contract occurred at the contractually agreed time, and the complainant received reasons for the non-renewal, orally and in writing (see Judgment 4321, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4321
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Judgment 4495
134th Session, 2022
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The obligation to give reasons for a non-renewal have been variously described as providing “valid reasons” (see Judgment 3769, consideration 7), and not “arbitrary or irrational” reasons (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2). While the reasons given in this case may be contestable, they were not of a character to sustain a conclusion they were, for example, not valid or arbitrary or irrational. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3586, consideration 6: “the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3586, 3769
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4473
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to recognise his son’s condition as a “serious illness” within the meaning of the provisions governing reimbursement of medical expenses.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; dependent child; health insurance; illness; insurance benefits; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is plain from Judgments 4167 and 4217, which also concern complaints of psychological harassment, that a decision is rendered unlawful by the refusal of an organisation’s executive head to disclose to the joint appeals body the report of the investigation into the harassment complaint lodged by the official concerned, or at least a redacted copy thereof. Similarly, in the aforementioned Judgment 4217, considerations 4 to 6, the Tribunal points out that, according to settled case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him. In this case, the Joint Committee for Disputes, on whose opinion the Director General states he bases his decision of 15 December 2016, was not provided with the investigation report concerned. Nor had the complainant received it by the time he was notified on 14 January 2016 that his psychological harassment complaint had been closed. In Judgment 4081, the Tribunal recalls that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the Director General neither provided information nor referred to the Committee’s reasons that would allow the complainant to understand why the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4217
Keywords:
confidentiality; final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4467
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the recruitment process and the resulting appointment for the post of Client Relationship Manager, for which he had applied.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The case law states, in consideration 5 of Judgment 4081, for example, that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and, in particular, the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. However, the Tribunal has also stated, in consideration 4 of Judgment 2978, that 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. These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of a procedure arising from a challenge to the selection process […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4081
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
Judgment 4455
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]here is an anterior issue, namely whether the complainant was provided with adequate reasons for the decision to suspend her with pay bearing in mind that suspension is a matter of some gravity (see Judgment 3496, consideration 2). As noted earlier, one relevant question arising under Staff Rule 29(1) for which reasons should be provided at least in case such as the present, is why the decision-maker (the Secretary-General) concluded that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. Ordinarily the other question arising under Staff Rule 29(1), whether it is a case that appears to call for a sanction, can readily be answered by reference to the actual or pending charges and the then known or alleged facts. Generally, the source of those reasons can be a document other than the document communicating the decision and indeed can be what an official is told at a meeting (see, for example, Judgment 4037, consideration 7, and Judgment 3914, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3496, 3914, 4037
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; suspension;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that a transfer decision satisfies the requirements laid down in its case law concerning the statement of reasons when, in particular, the staff member was given explanations enabling her or him to comment on the new duties in detail and in full knowledge of the facts before the decision was taken (see Judgment 3662, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal considers that, just as the requisite statement of reasons may be contained in the notification informing the staff member of the decision or any other document, the reasons may also be provided in prior proceedings, or orally (see, inter alia, Judgments 1590, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 4397, consideration 15), or may even be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 1590, consideration 7, and 3316, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316, 3662, 4397
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; transfer;
Judgment 4437
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post following her transfer.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Precedent has it that any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds (see, for example, Judgment 4108, consideration 3). Furthermore, under settled case law, the executive head of an international organisation, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, 3830, considerations 6 and 8, or 4062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830, 4062, 4108
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The rationale for fully and adequately motivating the final decision on an internal appeal was relevantly stated as follows, in consideration 9 of Judgment 3727:
“It is not sufficient to explain why, in the opinion of the executive head of the organisation, the internal appeal body approached an issue in a way that was flawed. It is also necessary to explain the basis on which the conclusion actually reached by the executive head of the organisation was arrived at if it was different to the conclusion of the internal appeal body [...] In the present case, it was necessary for the Secretary General not simply to identify perceived flaws in the reasoning or procedures of the Commission said to undermine its conclusion that the post had evolved but, in addition, to explain his reasons for the conclusion that the post had been “cut”. This leads to consideration of whether, in all the circumstances, the impugned decision sufficiently explained this latter conclusion.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3727
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants contend that the impugned decisions contain no reasoning and solely relied on the Appeals Committee’s opinion which is not acceptable and biased. The Tribunal’s case law has it that a final decision may accept the opinion or recommendations of an internal appeal body without further analysis (see, for example, Judgment 3994, consideration 12), but must be motivated if it rejects the opinion and recommendations (see Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). Accordingly, the fact that the impugned decisions merely accepted the Appeals Committee’s reasoning does not vitiate those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
