ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Motivation (669,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation
Total judgments found: 37

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4169


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance report for the 2008-2009 biennium and the decision to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2011.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in the presentation of the parties’ arguments, but after having noted that “the [complainant] [...] makes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] report”, the Appeals Board merely stated that “the statements of the [complainant]’s supervisors, her own statement and that of her Counsel [...] before the Reports Board” were taken into account. This sweeping generalisation does not allow the Tribunal to understand the reasons for which the complainant’s allegations concerning the attitude of her supervisor [...] were accepted or dismissed, and to what extent, if at all. Since the Appeals Board did not respond to the complainant’s allegations, it is impossible to determine whether the Board gave due consideration to the question [...].

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; motivation;



  • Judgment 4167


    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that, in accordance with its case law, an executive head of an international organisation who departs from a recommendation of an internal appeal body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached (see Judgments 3908, consideration 3, and 3863, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863, 3908

    Keywords:

    motivation;



  • Judgment 4165


    128th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay her certain entitlements upon separation from service.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal observes that the Appeals Council’s report, which recommended that the complainant’s internal appeal be dismissed as the applicable rules had been respected and that the decision of 24 February 2015 was made to best represent the facts, was succinct. However, the opinion of the Council and the impugned decision provided sufficient bases in themselves and by reference to other texts to enable the complainant to challenge the decision and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review (see Judgments 3184, under 10, and 3772, under 10 and 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184, 3772

    Keywords:

    motivation;



  • Judgment 4164


    128th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting his request to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    It 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, and that how extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772

    Keywords:

    motivation;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently stated that 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 her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself.

    Keywords:

    motivation;



  • Judgment 4147


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to retain his candidature for a post.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has consistently held 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 his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself (see Judgment 2092, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4101


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    [T]he Director of the Centre was not obliged to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry. Paragraph 22 of Circular No. 13/2009 expressly provides that the Director may close the file “if the accusations of the alleged victim are insufficiently well founded”. In that case, her only obligation was to respond point by point to the complainant’s allegations. Considering the nature of the allegations and the answers given, the Director was not required to provide any further justification to the complainant (see Judgment 3149, consideration 17). The sole purpose of the preliminary assessment of such a complaint is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation (see Judgment 3640, consideration 5). In the absence of a contrary provision, the adversarial principle did not need to be applied at this preliminary stage of the procedure for opening a harassment investigation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3149, 3640

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; motivation;



  • Judgment 4081


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.

    Consideration 5

    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 be will depend on the circumstances (see Judgments 1817, consideration 6, and 3617, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3617

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the case law, the reasons for a decision need not be stated in the decision itself, but may be contained in other documents communicated to the staff member concerned; they may even be set forth in briefs or submissions produced for the first time before the Tribunal, provided that the complainant’s right of appeal is fully respected (see, for example, Judgments 1289, consideration 9, 1817, consideration 6, 2112, consideration 5, or 2927, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; right of appeal; right to reply;



  • Judgment 4062


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held 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 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, or 3830, considerations 6 and 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; executive head; impugned decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4060


    127th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the affected staff member must be given reasons in support of any adverse administrative decision (see, for example, Judgments 2124, under 3, 3041, under 9, and 3617, under 5). As stated recently in Judgment 3903, under 21, the rationale underlying the obligation to give reasons is to safeguard the staff member’s rights, which requires, among other things, that “the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested” (see Judgment 2124, under 4). Implicit in this statement is that the evaluation as to whether the decision should be contested involves a consideration of whether, having regard to the nature of the decision, there are other options to explore short of initiating the internal appeal process. For example, to state a few, the staff member may wish to initiate a discussion regarding remedial action that she or he could take, if warranted, or pursue informal or formal mediation. Particularly, in cases such as the present case, the adequacy of the reasons is critical and requires sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible reasons. Based on the considerations below, the Tribunal finds that the reasons given to the complainant were not adequate.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2124, 3041, 3617, 3903

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; motivation;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    motivation;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The ICC’s failure to provide the complainant with adequate reasons for the 12 June 2014 decision constitutes a breach of the complainant’s due process rights and, accordingly, the decision is unlawful. This would warrant an order setting aside the decision, however, as noted above, such an order is unnecessary as the decision is no longer in force. The complainant is nonetheless entitled to moral damages for the breach of his due process rights.

    Keywords:

    damages; due process; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; motivation;



  • Judgment 4058


    127th Session, 2019
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he Disciplinary Committee found no misconduct and recommended no sanction. In the decision of [...], the Secretary General failed to explain why the Disciplinary Committee’s analysis and conclusions on both the question of guilt and the question of sanction were wrong (see Judgment 3969, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4044


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3695.

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    Foundational to the Tribunal’s reasoning in [Judgment 3695] was the duty of an executive head of an organisation to substantiate a final decision departing from the recommendations of an appeal committee. In that regard, the Tribunal referred to Judgments 2339, 2699 and 3208.
    However, for the purpose of the present application for execution, the applicable principle was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2092, consideration 10. The Tribunal said a departure from a recommendation of an appeal committee must be explained, but also said: “[w]hen the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he [or she] is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself” (see also, for example, Judgments 2577 and 2611).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2339, 2577, 2611, 2699, 3208, 3695

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; motivation;



  • Judgment 4037


    126th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that, under its case law, “[a] staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that [she or] he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given [her or] his full say.” (See Judgment 3914, under 15.)
    In this case, the evidence shows that the decision of 17 August 2010 referred, albeit in a perfunctory manner, to the special measures taken by UNESCO to put short-term appointments in order and to the on-going restructuring of the sector to which the complainant was assigned. It is also evident from the file that the complainant had been informed of the Organization’s decision to appoint a programme specialist in her sector of activity. The Tribunal hence considers that the complainant was sufficiently informed of the reasons why her appointment was not renewed, as may also be inferred from her extensive comments on this matter in the aforementioned memorandum of 20 August and during the internal appeal proceedings. This plea is thus unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3914

    Keywords:

    motivation;



  • Judgment 4011


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    In the impugned decision [...] the Director-General did not accept [the] recommendations. He fully explained the reasons for not doing so as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 3968, under 19).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3968

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 3995


    126th Session, 2018
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Such laconic reasoning which, in the absence of any specific reference to legal or factual considerations, prevents the complainant from ascertaining whether each of the pleas presented in support of his appeal was duly examined by the Board, or from challenging the merits of that body’s recommendation, plainly does not satisfy the minimum standards required in order to ensure that the complainant’s right to a fair appeal procedure is respected (see, for a comparable case, Judgment 1317, under 33).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; motivation; report;



  • Judgment 3912


    125th Session, 2018
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In his email cover note [...], under which the Director-General transmitted the JAB’s report to the complainant, he relevantly stated as follows:
    “I write in reference to the Appeal that you have made to the Joint Appeals Board [...]. I wish to confirm that I have received the attached reply from the JAB in this regard.
    I take due note of the findings of the JAB Board and am copying this message to both [the Director, New Delhi Component] and [the Chief, Legal and Administration] for due attention.”
    Although that may be deduced from the statement, the Director-General should have stated, unequivocally, that he accepted the findings and recommendation of the JAB. The Tribunal would usually remit the case to the Director-General for clarification. However that course of action is considered unnecessary as it would serve no useful purpose in the present case given that it is plain that the complaint is unmeritorious.

    Keywords:

    motivation;



  • Judgment 3908


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has repeatedly observed, and recently done so in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, that: “[t]he 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.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862

    Keywords:

    final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 3884


    124th Session, 2017
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The fact that the decision was purely implicit meant, by definition, that it was not accompanied by a statement of reasons.

    Keywords:

    implied decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 3863


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    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.

    Keywords:

    motivation;



  • Judgment 3862


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    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.

    Keywords:

    motivation;



  • Judgment 3858


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s jurisprudence requires that when the ultimate decision-maker rejects, as she or he is entitled to, the conclusions and recommendations of an internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons for doing so (see, for example, Judgments 3312, consideration 6, and 3208, consideration 11, and the judgments cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3312

    Keywords:

    motivation;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top