|
|
 |
|
|
Motivation of final decision (891,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation of final decision
Total judgments found: 88
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 5169
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
acquired right; complaint allowed; motivation of final decision; travel expenses;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[S]elon une jurisprudence constante 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 (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4923, au considérant 10, 4593, au considérant 6, 4081, au considérant 5, 3617, au considérant 5, ou 1817, au considérant 6). En l’espèce, le Tribunal constate que la motivation de la décision attaquée était à la fois détaillée et étayée et mettait bien l’intéressée en mesure de comprendre et de contester les raisons de celles-ci, comme en témoigne d’ailleurs éloquemment le contenu de ses écritures produites dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne et devant le Tribunal.
[…]
Enfin, sur le caractère erroné de l’avis de la Commission paritaire des litiges, la requérante soutient que la rédaction de cet avis était «mensongère» […] Si la rédaction de l’avis peut parfois sembler équivoque, la décision attaquée énonce clairement les motivations à son appui sans se limiter nécessairement à ce que cet avis contient, ce qui satisfait aux exigences applicables en la matière (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4368, au considérant 15, ou 4164, au considérant 11).
Keywords:
decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
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 5144
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls its 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, Judgments 4062, consideration 3, 3830, considerations 6 and 8, 3695, consideration 9, and 3208, consideration 11). The Tribunal stated in Judgment 2347, consideration 14: ‘The rationale for requiring decisions to be motivated is to allow the staff member to know why he or she had received an unfavourable decision and to make an informed decision as to whether or not he or she should have recourse to the Tribunal.’ […] [The Director General] did not engage with the [Appeals] Committee’s […] concern regarding other positions that appeared to match the complainant’s background. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Director General failed to state adequate reasons when disagreeing with the Appeals Committee on this point.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 3208, 3695, 3830, 4062
Keywords:
motivation of final 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 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 5050
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste les décisions prises par l’Organisation concernant la demande de reclassement de son poste.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[L]a Directrice générale était tenue, dès lors qu’elle s’est écartée sur ce point des recommandations du Conseil d’appel, d’exposer les motifs de ce choix (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4762, au considérant 8, ou 4598, au considérant 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4598, 4762
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 5036
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an 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 (see Judgments 4777, consideration 3, 3969, consideration 10, and 3862, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862, 3969, 4777
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 5000
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the “deemed rejection” of his request for an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the Assistant Director-General at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva; the determination by the Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics that he had not suffered retaliation, and that he was not entitled to protection against retaliation; and WHO’s decision to accept his resignation which he claims constitutes constructive dismissal.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that the executive head of an organization has an obligation to provide reasons where it rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body. This is to ensure that there will be no room for arbitrary, unprincipled, or even irrational, decision-making (see Judgments 4307, consideration 15, 3208, consideration 11, and 2699, consideration 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3208, 4307
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4962
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance appraisal for 2019 and the subsequent decisions to “freeze” her step advancement and to place her on a performance improvement plan.
Consideration 21
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle tout d’abord sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle le chef exécutif d’une organisation peut s’écarter des recommandations d’un organe de recours interne pour autant qu’il en expose les raisons dans sa décision (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4616, au considérant 9, et les jugements qui y sont cités).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4960
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, firstly, the decision not to promote her in the 2018 annual promotion exercise and, secondly, the refusal to consider a reclassification of her post. She also alleges gender discrimination.
Consideration 11
Extract:
S’agissant de l’obligation de motivation relative à des décisions de refus de promotion adoptées dans le cadre d’un exercice global de promotion annuel, le Tribunal a affirmé, dans son jugement 2869, au considérant 7, par renvoi au considérant 8 du jugement 1355, qu’«aucune règle ni [aucun] principe général ne fait obligation de motiver expressément une décision refusant une promotion ou une nomination à un poste déterminé. Ce qui importe c’est que, sur demande des intéressés, les motifs d’une telle décision puissent être connus, de sorte que le juge puisse exercer son contrôle en examinant si ces motifs sont légaux et de nature à justifier la décision.» En d’autres termes, il revient à l’organisation concernée d’être à même de fournir, en cas de demande de l’un des fonctionnaires évincés, les motifs de sa décision en ce qui concerne ce dernier.
Le Tribunal a de même considéré que le rapport de confiance établi entre l’organisation et ses fonctionnaires exige que les candidats qui n’ont pas été retenus en vue d’une promotion soient informés en temps opportun de la décision prise à leur égard et des motifs qui l’inspirent, étant entendu que le principe même du devoir de motivation est l’une des conditions indispensables de la défense de ses droits par le fonctionnaire concerné, avec cette conséquence que celui-ci est en droit de recevoir toutes les informations nécessaires à cet effet (voir, notamment, le jugement 1223, au considérant 36). Cela contribue en effet à préserver le droit du fonctionnaire concerné à présenter un recours interne et à introduire une requête devant le Tribunal s’il estime que sa non-promotion est entachée d’irrégularités (voir, pour une jurisprudence analogue en matière de non-sélection à un poste par suite d’une procédure de concours, les jugements 4060, au considérant 9, 3903, au considérant 21, 2124, au considérant 4, et 1223, aux considérants 20 et 36).
Cela étant, le Tribunal a également précisé que la motivation qui fonde une décision de refus de promotion est suffisante lorsqu’elle est de nature à permettre au fonctionnaire concerné de comprendre, même s’il ne les partage pas, les raisons qui ont motivé le choix du candidat finalement promu (voir, notamment, le jugement 4625, au considérant 10). Il a de même considéré, à différentes reprises, que l’obligation de motiver n’implique pas, en soi et notamment lorsque l’organisation a été amenée à exercer son choix entre plusieurs candidats, que les motifs du choix soient communiqués en même temps que la décision qui fait grief; ceux-ci peuvent en effet être communiqués ultérieurement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4455, au considérant 11, et 4368, au considérant 15), notamment dans le cadre d’une procédure découlant d’une contestation du processus de sélection (voir, notamment, les jugements 4683, au considérant 12, 4467, au considérant 7, 4455, au considérant 11, 4368, au considérant 15, 4259, au considérant 6, 3660, au considérant 3, et 2978, au considérant 4).
Le Tribunal a même relevé, dans différents jugements, que la motivation qui a fondé une décision attaquée devant lui peut résulter de mémoires ou de pièces produites pour la première fois devant le Tribunal, pour autant que le droit de recours de l’intéressé puisse être pleinement respecté (voir les jugements 4081, au considérant 5, 3772, au considérant 11, 2927, au considérant 7, 2112, au considérant 5, 1817, au considérant 6, et 1289, au considérant 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1289, 1355, 1817, 2112, 2124, 2869, 2927, 2978, 3660, 3772, 3903, 4060, 4259, 4368, 4455, 4467, 4625, 4683
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; promotion;
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 4917
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law establishes that the executive head of an organisation when adopting the recommendations of an internal appeal body is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. The obligation to give reasons is affirmed only where the executive head of an organisation rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the appeal body (see Judgments 4616, consideration 9, 4307, consideration 15, and 3994, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4307, 4616
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4894
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In substance, the Vice-President of DG4 has failed to motivate the impugned decision […], which departed from the recommendation of the Internal Appeals Committee. He is legally obliged to do so (see, for example, Judgments 4772, consideration 12, 4762, consideration 8, and 4598, consideration 12). For this reason alone, the impugned decision should be set aside, as the complainant seeks.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4598, 4762, 4772
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4877
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]n his rejoinder, the complainant criticises the Director-General for failing to explain in her decision [...] why she had not followed the dissenting opinions expressed by two members of the Appeals Board. But the Tribunal recalls that the simple reference made by the Director-General to the recommendation of the Appeals Board is in itself adequate motivation (see, to that effect, Judgment 4147, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4147
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4865
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Advisor, Gender Equality, following a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In the present case, the complainant argues that the impugned decision should be set aside because there was a dissenting opinion by a member of the Global Board of Appeal (GBA) who found that there was a breach of the selection procedure, but the Executive Director accepted the opinion of the majority of the GBA without explaining why she rejected the dissenting member’s recommendation. The argument is unfounded. In the case leading to Judgment 2347, the author of the impugned decision did not adequately explain why he rejected the Appeals Board’s recommendations. As a result, the complainant in that case was not in a position to make an informed decision whether or not to have recourse to the Tribunal and of the bases for challenging the impugned decision. In the present case, however, the Director General accepted the conclusions and recommendation of the majority of the GBA, and the reasons on which the majority reached those conclusions were fully explained in its report, thereby enabling the complainant to make the informed decision. This aligns with the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 10 of Judgment 4147 that when the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself. There is no authority that requires an executive head of an organization having accepted the opinion of the majority of an internal appeal body to motivate or explain the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the minority. Even assuming that there was case law requiring that to be done, on the facts of this case, there was no need for the Executive Director to explain why she rejected the conclusions of the minority. It was clearly implicit in her acceptance of the opinion of the majority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 4147
Keywords:
motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“[W]hen 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, for example, Judgments 4662, consideration 15, and 4307, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4307, 4662
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 31-33
Extract:
In Judgment 3969, consideration 10, referring to Judgment 3862, consideration 20, the Tribunal recalled the overarching legal principles that apply in terms of motivation of a decision when the executive head of an organization elects not to follow the recommendation of an internal advisory body:
“[...] ‘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. In addition, according to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14). [...]’
These observations, as they relate to reports and conclusions of internal appeal bodies, are equally applicable to reports and opinions of a Disciplinary Committee.”
The constant case law of the Tribunal confirms that an organization must provide a proper and clear motivation when it does not follow the opinion and recommendation of an internal appeal body to the detriment of the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). In Judgment 3161, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that it is necessary for the executive head of an organization to explain the basis on which she or he arrived at a different conclusion than that of the internal advisory body. In this regard, it is not enough to simply identify flaws in the reasoning or procedures of the advisory body, but reasons must be provided for the opposite conclusion reached by the executive head.
In the impugned decision, the Secretary-General offered no explanation to support his conclusion that he was maintaining a demotion by two grades notwithstanding the recommendation of the Appeal Board to refer the matter for re-evaluation to the JAC’s Disciplinary Chamber. Besides stating that this was his conclusion that such sanction was proportionate and appropriate under the circumstances, no more reasons were offered. This fell short of the requirements of the Tribunal’s case law that indicates that a complainant must be made aware of this motivation in order to be able to conduct herself or himself accordingly and properly respond (see, for example, Judgment 1817, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3161, 3649, 3862, 3969, 4062
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
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 12
Extract:
Secondly, it appears, as the Organisation acknowledges in its reply, that the investigation report was also not provided, either in full or even in anonymized form, to the Joint Committee for Disputes before it gave its opinion on 27 February 2020, which in itself also constitutes a flaw since the Committee must be able under all circumstances to give a full and informed opinion (see, in this respect, Judgments 4471, consideration 14, and 4167, consideration 3).
The fact that the members of the Committee considered unanimously that the complainant’s internal complaint was well-founded is irrelevant in this respect, since the Committee could have given an even more reasoned opinion on the merits had it been provided with the final investigation report.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4471
Keywords:
final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
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 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Still with respect to the decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019, the complainant considers, secondly, that they are based on spurious grounds. The purportedly substantial reorganization of the NTS Division which the complainant headed was purely fictitious, his functions were not in fact abolished as had been indicated to him at the meeting of 5 July 2019, and no other staff member in his Division was really disadvantaged by the introduction of the new Technology Division. He also considers that a reorganization due to be finalized in September 2019 could not, under any circumstances, give rise to a decision to abolish his functions on 5 July 2019, that is more than three months in advance. Accordingly, the complainant takes the view that he was never afforded the opportunity to ascertain the real reasons for which his functions were abolished, as the Joint Committee for Disputes also unanimously observed. In this regard, the complainant refutes each of the various grounds relied on in turn by Eurocontrol, whether in the decisions of 5 July 2019 or in its written submissions to the Tribunal, and notes a contradiction between the grounds set forth successively by the Organisation.
The Tribunal notes that in the memorandum of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019, it was firstly stated that following the reorganization of the Agency, the NTS Division would be abolished, as would the complainant’s functions. It was indicated secondly, in an email of 8 August 2019, that following the regrouping of all of the Agency’s information technology activities, the role of Head of the new Technology Division had become a substantially different role from that of Head of the NTS Division, in particular because that new division was approximately three times the size of the former NTS Division. Thirdly, the Agency argued that the organizational changes introduced meant that new skills were required for managerial positions, and that the “leadership” style desired and required by the Director General no longer matched the profile of the complainant, who was more a technical expert than a “leader”.
Thus, the specific justifications given concerning the various decisions of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019 changed as time went by, in line with his criticisms. The initial outright abolition of his functions became a substantial modification of the duties to be performed and, finally, turned into a modification of the “leadership” style required of the incumbents of managerial posts. This is all the more regrettable given that the complainant clearly stated, and this is not disputed by Eurocontrol, on the one hand, that from 2014 to 2017 he had headed the NTS Division, which already consisted of some 150 staff members and in which all of the Agency’s information technology services were grouped together before it was decided to split them, and, in July 2019, to regroup them again, and, on the other hand, that his various performance evaluation reports, in particular those relating to this period, had always been very positive, in particular with regard to his “leadership” capacity.
It follows that the various grounds on which the above-mentioned decisions are purported to be based cannot be considered valid and adequate within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4108, consideration 3, and 1817, consideration 7).
This plea is, therefore, well-founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4108, 4467
Keywords:
abolition of post; motivation; motivation of final decision; reorganisation;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal will only note that the Director General failed to adequately indicate, in his decision, the reasons why he did not act in accordance with [the] unanimous opinion [of the Joint Committee for Disputes], since he did not consider in that decision the reasons put forward by the Committee.
Accordingly, the Director General’s decision [...] to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint [...] must be set aside.
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[W]hile it is true that the Secretary-General did not consult the complainant’s head of unit on the matter, as the Appeal Board had also recommended, the Tribunal’s case law establishes that the executive head of an organisation may reject the recommendations of an internal appeal body as long as reasons are given for her or his decision (see, for example, Judgment 4616, consideration 9, and the judgments cited therein). Since the Secretary-General provided reasons in support of his decision explaining why he deemed it unnecessary to consult the head of unit, the Tribunal considers that the argument on which the complainant seeks to rely, solely concerning that lack of consultation, must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4762
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that the executive head of an international organisation, while at liberty to disagree with, and reject, recommendations made by an internal appeal body, must explain why and the basis for the disagreement and rejection (see, for example, Judgment 4598, consideration 12). The Executive Director has not done so in the present case and her decision should be quashed and the matter remitted to the WHO/UNAIDS for a fresh decision to be taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4598
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; motivation of final decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; misconduct; motivation of final decision; termination of employment;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
