Duty to substantiate decision (30,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to substantiate decision
Total judgments found: 148
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 5179
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request to access his complete medical file and contests the validity of the internal appeals proceedings.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is established in the Tribunal’s case law that 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 Judgments 4855, consideration 8, 4700, consideration 4, 4545, consideration 4, and 4062, consideration 3). This is not the case here. The majority opinion of the Appeals Committee was not favourable to the complainant; rather, the impugned decision departed from it in the complainant’s favour. In these circumstances, the decision-making authority was under no obligation to provide reasons for deviating from the appeals body’s opinion, and the complainant, therefore, has no interest in raising this issue."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4545, 4700, 4855
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; recommendation;
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"[T]he principle of transparency as well as the individual’s right to access personal data mandate that staff members receive full and unfettered access to their medical files and obtain copies upon request (paying the associated costs as necessary). The only situation in which this rule does not apply is where specific circumstances temporarily prevent such access. However, a decision to temporarily deny staff members full access to their medical files must be fully justified and reasonable […]. The Tribunal also relevantly stated that in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of staff members to access their own medical files, this right encompasses viewing and obtaining copies of all records and notes in the file, and adding pertinent notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete, and that, so stated, the right to access one’s own medical file gives effect to the organisation’s duty of transparency […]."
"As a rule, access to medical files should be granted also with regard to medical documentation submitted by the staff concerned and, thus, already in possession of the staff member who is requesting access. Indeed, the aim of a request to access a medical file is not only to obtain documentation that the staff member concerned does not have, but also to check that the medical file contains all the relevant documents, including those submitted by the staff concerned."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; medical records; no provision; organisation's duties; personal file;
Judgment 5148
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a G-5 position.
Consideration 14
Extract:
“[A]n executive head who departs from the recommendation of an internal appeal body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached […]. […] the reasons for a non-selection decision need not be provided at the same time as the decision itself and may be communicated subsequently, for instance in the course of an internal appeal […]. As the Organization had later provided her with a redacted Selection Report setting out the [Selection Panel]’s rationale during the internal appeal proceedings, the Organization discharged its obligation in this respect.”
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
Judgment 5145
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim that his injury was service-incurred.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, 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. How extensive those reasons need to be will depend on the circumstances (see Judgments 4081, consideration 5, 3617, consideration 5, and 1817, consideration 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3617, 4081
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Regarding the alleged failure to disclose some documentation, while it is noted that the complainant did not receive internal documentation, he was informed of the [Advisory Committee on Compensation Claims]’s recommendation. The Tribunal is satisfied that there was no breach of his rights, as it was sufficient to provide the complainant with the ACCC’s recommendation. The complainant received sufficient information to understand the reasoning for rejecting his claim and to exercise his right of appeal (see Judgment 4228, consideration 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4228
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to substantiate decision;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“[A]n international organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment which is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff […]. However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if taken without authority; if in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence […]. The Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited […].
[…] [A]n international organization has the duty to provide valid reasons for its non-renewal decision […]: ‘[…] a non-renewal decision must also be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones […]. Those reasons must also be communicated to the staff member concerned […], although they need not necessarily appear in the decision itself […].’
It is a firm principle established by the Tribunal’s case law that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member […].”
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
“[A]n executive head who departs from the recommendation of an internal appeal body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached […].”
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 5104
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject as time-barred her compensation claim for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]n his decision of 9 March 2022, the Director-General accepted the unanimous recommendation made by the JAAB in its report […] and, therefore, the views of the JAAB should have been considered by the Compensation Committee in its new consideration of the complainant’s compensation claim, but they were not. The JAAB’s detailed reasoning on what was the starting point for calculating the six-month time limit for the submission of her compensation claim spanned a little over three pages of factual and legal analysis. It culminated with a conclusion that a diagnosis made […] in December 2019 could serve as a starting point for the timeframe for the complainant filing a compensation claim. Given the history of the matter, it was clearly incumbent on the majority of the members of the Compensation Committee to explain why they did not accept, and, in fact, rejected, the JAAB’s analysis or, at least, why it was open to them to draw the unfavourable inference they did, in the face of the JAAB’s analysis.
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; illness; internal appeals body; recommendation; service-incurred; time limit;
Judgment 5102
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him with immediate effect for serious misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he relevant question in relation to the issue referred to in consideration 3 [...], is whether the Registrar motivated his decision to reject the recommendations of the Disciplinary Advisory Board as to what the appropriate disciplinary sanction was. While he referred to those recommendations, he did not explain why he rejected them. The case law is clear. For example, in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, the Tribunal said:
“The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.”
And, in Judgment 3969, consideration 10, the Tribunal reiterated the above statement noting that:
“These observations, as they relate to reports and conclusions of internal appeal bodies, are equally applicable to reports and opinions of a Disciplinary Committee.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862, 3969
Keywords:
disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The impugned decision will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to the ICC in order for it to decide whether to reject or accept the recommendations of the Disciplinary Advisory Board and to explain why.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision;
Consideration 8
Extract:
In the present case, the Disciplinary Advisory Board recommended two sanctions which were, at least arguably, within the range of available sanctions for the misconduct of the complainant. So too was the sanction actually adopted. The ICC’s answer to this argument appears to be that it was clear the executive head, namely the Registrar, adopted a more severe sanction which impliedly explained the rejection of the recommended sanctions of the Disciplinary Advisory Board. But that is not enough. Internal appeal and disciplinary bodies play an important role in the internal system of justice for international civil servants. It has long been settled that recommendations they make can be rejected. But the role of such bodies is fortified by the obligation of the decision maker to explain her or his rejection of those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 4832, considerations 31 and 32, and 4697, consideration 5). The Registrar failed to do this in the present case. In the result his decision is, in this respect, unlawful and will be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4697, 4832
Keywords:
disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision;
Judgment 5007
140th Session, 2025
International Cocoa Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the date of his within-grade step increment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; recommendation; step;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeal body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations […].
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 4935
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to abolish his position and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Firm precedent has it that in order to achieve greater efficiency or to make budgetary savings international organisations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see, for example, Judgment 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4004, consideration 2). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3582, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3238, 3582, 4004
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; reorganisation;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A] decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. The Tribunal has further stated that the need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises precisely because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested (see, for example, Judgment 3041, considerations 8 and 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The central question […] is whether IOM gave the complainant the required notification of the abolition of his post and the termination of his appointment. [T]he Tribunal does not impose on international organizations a duty to provide staff members whose positions are abolished with the full set of internal documents used as a basis for such decision. Rather, the Tribunal requires an organization to give such staff members notice within the required time and sufficient reasons for the decision to abolish their post and for any subsequent decision, including the termination of their appointment. This is the expressed purport of Regulation 9.4. It also accords with the well-settled case law that an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure, and, in so doing, may abolish posts. As well, it accords with the case law stated, for example, in consideration 7 of Judgment 3234, that a decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights and that these rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3234
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Judgment 4923
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his internal complaint of untrue statements
Consideration 10
Extract:
Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, la motivation d’une décision administrative doit permettre à son destinataire d’en connaître les raisons, notamment afin de mettre celui-ci à même de se déterminer en conséquence quant à l’éventuel usage de son droit de recours; elle doit également permettre aux autorités compétentes de vérifier si cette décision est conforme au droit et, en particulier, mettre le Tribunal en mesure d’exercer son pouvoir de contrôle. Cette même jurisprudence précise cependant que l’étendue de la motivation exigée dépend des circonstances de chaque affaire (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4081, au considérant 5, 3617, au considérant 5, ou 1817, au considérant 6). […]
Mais le Tribunal estime que le motif ainsi mentionné, qui suffisait à indiquer, par lui-même, qu’aucun des éléments fournis par l’intéressé à l’appui de cette plainte n’était considéré par l’IOS comme probant, mettait bien celui-ci en mesure de comprendre et, le cas échéant, de contester les raisons de la décision litigieuse, comme en témoigne d’ailleurs le contenu de ses écritures produites dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne et de l’instance juridictionnelle. Ce motif répond également aux exigences requises pour mettre le Tribunal à même d’exercer son contrôle.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3617, 4081
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that a decision not to renew the appointment of a staff member of an international organisation lies within the discretion of its executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review. It may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 4654, consideration 16). However, under the Tribunal’s case law applicable to contractual relationships generally, a decision not to renew a contract must be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones (see, for example, Judgments 4495, consideration 15, 3769, consideration 7, 3353, consideration 15, and 1128, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3353, 3769, 4495, 4654
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that 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, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that 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:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
“An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).”
In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
“However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
‘It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules [...].’”
This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 29
Extract:
Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
“Even though an organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).”
In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, [consideration] 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal observes, thirdly, that, although the two matters outlined above were, among others, specifically noted by the Joint Committee for Disputes in reaching the unanimous conclusion, in its opinion issued on 24 January 2022, that the complainant’s internal complaint was well-founded, they were not in any way addressed in the reasons given in the Director General’s final decision of 12 May 2022.
Accordingly, there are grounds for considering that the reasons given for this decision are also not adequate, within the meaning of the Tribunal’s relevant case law (see Judgments 4700, consideration 4, 4598, consideration 12, 4400, consideration 10, and 4062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4400, 4598, 4700
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
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;
Judgment 4307
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for the reclassification of his post as well as his request for compensation for performing duties at a higher grade than his.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that the executive head of an organisation who rejects the conclusions and recommendations of an authority charged with making a prior recommendation is obliged to provide adequate reasons for rejecting them. This is to ensure that there will be no room for arbitrary, unprincipled, or even irrational, decision-making. However, when the executive head of an organisation adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself (see Judgments 3994, consideration 12, and 2092, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 3994
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4259
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The President stated that he did not consider the prolongation justified “after weighing all relevant aspects and with due respect to the Office’s prevailing general interest of [the] service”. It is not clear from the impugned decision or from any document which the EPO presents what the “relevant aspects” are. The EPO does not explain it and the Tribunal does not discern a nexus between any aspects of the proposed structural reform of the Boards of Appeal contained in document CA/16/15 and the President’s decision not to propose the prolongation of the complainant’s appointment to the Administrative Council. Moreover, there is no indication as to what the Office’s prevailing general interest of the service in rejecting the complainant’s request for prolongation of his appointment was. Merely repeating that phrase in similar terms to the formulation in Article 54(1)(b) was insufficient. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the President’s decision not to propose the prolongation of the complainant’s appointment to the Administrative Council and rejecting the request was irregular.
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4228
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for compensation for loss of earnings allegedly caused by a service-incurred injury.
Consideration 6
Extract:
With regard to the failure to disclose the internal documentation, the Tribunal finds that the complainant was informed of the ACCC’s recommendation in the letter dated 2 December 2014 in which the Director-General’s decision to reject his claim was communicated to him. There was no breach of any due process rights as the complainant was informed of the substance of the ACCC’s recommendation, as well as the Director-General’s final decision. The complainant was provided with sufficient elements to understand the reasoning for rejecting his claim and to exercise his right of appeal.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to substantiate decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
