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

Final decision (657, 27, 28, 30, 545,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Final decision
Total judgments found: 76

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 4558


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Le requérant se plaint du non-remboursement des dépens exposés devant le Tribunal dans le cadre de sa troisième requête.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Le Tribunal observe qu’il est contradictoire et regrettable que l’Organisation soutienne devant lui que la décision communiquée au requérant ne serait pas définitive alors qu’elle avait pourtant précisé, dans son courriel […], que la voie d’une demande de réexamen n’était pas ouverte à l’intéressé. Si une organisation a le devoir de dissiper toute erreur d’un fonctionnaire quand ce dernier se méprend dans la mise en œuvre de son droit de recours, elle a d’autant plus le devoir de ne pas aiguiller incorrectement un fonctionnaire au mauvais endroit en lui indiquant erronément qu’une demande de réexamen n’est pas la voie à suivre ou que son seul recours possible est devant le Tribunal, pour ensuite lui tenir rigueur d’avoir suivi ses directives.
    Mais, surtout, le Tribunal relève que l’Organisation ne peut dispenser le requérant de l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne alors que les dispositions applicables des Statut et Règlement du personnel ne l’autorisent pas à le faire, et encore moins en indiquant erronément à l’intéressé que sa contestation peut être portée directement devant le Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    final decision; organisation's duties; waiver of internal appeal procedure;



  • Judgment 4543


    134th Session, 2022
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2016.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Le Tribunal rappelle [...] sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle «le chef exécutif d’une organisation internationale est tenu, lorsqu’il statue sur un recours interne par une décision qui s’écarte, au détriment du fonctionnaire concerné, des recommandations formulées par l’organe de recours, d’exposer de manière adéquate les motifs pour lesquels il a estimé ne pas devoir suivre ces recommandations» (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4062, au considérant 3, et la jurisprudence citée).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062

    Keywords:

    final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4540


    134th Session, 2022
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from its Statute. In an early case it was described as “a [c]ourt of limited jurisdiction [...] bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence” (see Judgment 67, consideration 3). One of the Tribunal’s central roles, founded on Article II of the Statute, is to enforce compliance with staff regulations where they have not been observed. The touchstone of its jurisdiction is, in this respect, lawfully adopted staff regulations or rules of international organisations. The provisions in the staff regulations and rules are the starting point in the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Staff Rule 1230.7.2 which provides that the final decision in an appeal is made by the Director, must be respected and given full effect. The Director was authorised to make the decision in the appeal in the present case and her decision was not tainted by illegality as alleged by the complainant.
    Cases do arise in the Tribunal where the decision appealed against and the decision in the appeal are made by the same person, but the latter decision involves a rejection of recommendations of the appeal body. The discussion in the preceding consideration is not intended to suggest that in such cases there is no real scrutiny by the Tribunal of that latter decision and the reasons given. To the contrary, there is. The Tribunal’s case law is replete with examples where the motivation for the rejection has been found to be inadequate and the decision in the appeal has been set aside (see, for example, Judgments 4427, consideration 10, 4259, considerations 11 and 12, and 4062, consideration 4). This approach has the effect of respecting rules conferring, ordinarily, on the executive head of an organisation the power to make the final decision in an appeal even if an appeal from a decision of that person, while recognising the vitally important role appeal bodies play and the need to give considerable weight to findings and recommendations they make.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 4062, 4259, 4427

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence of tribunal; conflict of interest; final decision;



  • Judgment 4504


    134th Session, 2022
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote her from grade P4 to grade P3 for a period of two years.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Inasmuch as the Appeal Board’s role in an internal appeal is an advisory one, the Director General may depart from its recommendations provided that she or he must state clear and cogent reasons for doing so (see, for example, Judgment 2699, consideration 24).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699

    Keywords:

    disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4471


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It is plain from Judgments 4167 and 4217, which also concern complaints of psychological harassment, that a decision is rendered unlawful by the refusal of an organisation’s executive head to disclose to the joint appeals body the report of the investigation into the harassment complaint lodged by the official concerned, or at least a redacted copy thereof. Similarly, in the aforementioned Judgment 4217, considerations 4 to 6, the Tribunal points out that, according to settled case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him. In this case, the Joint Committee for Disputes, on whose opinion the Director General states he bases his decision of 15 December 2016, was not provided with the investigation report concerned. Nor had the complainant received it by the time he was notified on 14 January 2016 that his psychological harassment complaint had been closed. In Judgment 4081, the Tribunal recalls that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the Director General neither provided information nor referred to the Committee’s reasons that would allow the complainant to understand why the decision was taken.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4217

    Keywords:

    confidentiality; final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; procedural flaw;



  • 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; 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; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4415


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The approach taken by the President to the question of the relevance of the complainant’s health and whether there were any mitigating circumstances or factors was significantly flawed. The impugned decision rejecting the request for review of the decision to dismiss the complainant for misconduct will be set aside.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; final decision; health reasons; mitigating circumstances;



  • Judgment 4404


    132nd Session, 2021
    African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of an amount wrongly deducted from her pay owing to double national taxation of her income, and compensation for the moral injury allegedly suffered as a result.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgment 2366, consideration 16, confirmed by Judgments 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3700, consideration 14, 3876, consideration 5, and 3961, consideration 4).
    In this case, the email [...], the sole purpose of which was to invite the complainant to submit documents deemed necessary by the organisation’s services so that the deductions could be reimbursed, was merely a step in preparation for the decision that would ultimately be taken as to the payment of the sums in question. That email cannot therefore be construed as constituting a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and could not, therefore, be impugned before the Tribunal (for a similar case involving a request for the production of supporting documents required for the examination of an application for financial benefits, see Judgment 3876, considerations 4 and 5).
    It follows that the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4379


    131st Session, 2021
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Administration’s refusal to provide him in a timely manner with unredacted copies of documents and records relied upon by the Internal Oversight Services during the disciplinary investigation.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant’s reliance on Judgment 4167, consideration 4, in support of his assertion that the Director-General violated his duty to motivate his departure from the GBA’s findings is misplaced. As stated in this judgment, consideration 4, “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”. This case law only has application when an authority competent to make a final decision departs from the internal appeal body’s recommendation. As the Director-General accepted the GBA’s recommendation in its entirety, there was no alternative decision that required motivation. Accordingly, the complainant’s submission that the impugned decision was “not properly motivated” is unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167

    Keywords:

    final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4373


    131st Session, 2021
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    A final decision maker can refer to other documents which, when taken together with such reasons for decision as are given by the decision maker, can constitute the reasons for decision (see, for example, Judgment 4081, consideration 5). But the Tribunal’s approach is influenced by the circumstances and the nature of the decision (see Judgment 2927, consideration 7), and the Tribunal does not recognise the aggregation of reasons from multiple sources is appropriate in relation to disciplinary decisions (see Judgment 2112, consideration 5). The Director-General did not adequately motivate his decision to censure the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned decision […] should be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2112, 2927, 4081

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4360


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    Because the Prosecutor rejected the findings and recommendations of the Board, she was obliged to motivate her conclusion and address not only the relevant inculpatory evidence pointing to guilt but also the relevant exculpatory evidence pointing to innocence, including the alibi evidence. She failed to do so [...].

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4291


    130th Session, 2020
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    In Judgment 4164, addressing a similar argument, the Tribunal stated the following, at consideration 13: “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.” The following was also stated in Judgment 3184, consideration 10:
    “The case law has consistently provided that ‘[t]here is a duty to explain a decision or a conclusion because everyone concerned has to know the reasons for it [...] [b]ut the duty will be discharged even if the reasons are stated in some other text to which there is express or even implied reference, for example where a higher authority endorses the reasoning of a lower one or a recommendation by some advisory body’ (see in particular Judgment 1673, under 6). Consequently, the Director-General, in his final decision, was not required to provide a detailed reply to each of the objections raised by the complainant. He merely had to state reasons for adopting or rejecting the recommendation of the advisory body and the reason on which the original decision was based.”
    In the present case, the Director General endorsed the Appeals Committee’s opinion, which recommended that he dismiss the appeal in its entirety, and was based on its findings (section IV of the opinion) which are concise and specific, as well as the findings of the Internal Auditor and the OIOS investigations. The Tribunal concludes that the duty to motivate the Appeals Committee’s opinion and the final decision has been fulfilled.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1673, 3184, 4164

    Keywords:

    final decision; motivation;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139

    Keywords:

    decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;



  • Judgment 4277


    130th Session, 2020
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [A] competent authority is not bound to follow the recommendations of an advisory body which is internal to the organisation, except where a text requires that the advisory body give its assent (see Judgment 4008, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4008

    Keywords:

    final decision;



  • Judgment 4269


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former EPO employee subjected to a “house ban”, seeks to impugn the decision to reject his requests for review.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It is clear from the file that the email [...] from the Conflict Resolution Unit, which confirmed that the complainant’s challenge to the house ban imposed on him was being addressed through the internal appeal procedure, does not constitute a final decision for the purposes of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    final decision; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 4220


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the rejection of their requests for an agreed separation.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [The complainant] contends inter alia that the fact that the impugned decision was not signed by the Director-General raises legitimate doubts as to who made the decision. This argument must be rejected. The letter from the Director of HRM [...] clearly states that “[t]he Director-General has asked me to inform you of the following [...]”. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3177, consideration 12, the authorized decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision and it is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177

    Keywords:

    final decision;



  • Judgment 4207


    129th Session, 2020
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he IAEA takes the position that having regard to the OIOS’s operational independence, as provided in the OIOS Charter, the Director General was constrained by the findings and conclusions of the OIOS Report and by the standard of proof necessary to establish harassment identified by OIOS, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is convenient to address this submission at this point. It is observed that the operational independence of OIOS, as provided for in the OIOS Charter, concerns the independence of its internal operations. It does not in any way constrain or implicate the Director General’s decision-making authority nor does it preclude judicial review of the OIOS’s findings and conclusions underpinning a Director General’s final decision. Accordingly, this submission is unfounded.

    Keywords:

    final decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;



  • Judgment 4203


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests, inter alia, his reinstatement to his former post.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant asserts that the difference between this complaint and the previously filed one lies in the fact that it is directed to the present rather than the former President of the EPO. Complaints filed against a final decision are made against the Organisation and not against the particular person who took the decision. Therefore, the change in President from time to time has no effect on the decisions taken prior to the change or on any judgments which regarded such decisions.

    Keywords:

    final decision; impugned decision;



  • 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 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal also notes that this refusal to disclose resulted in the Committee being unable to give a proper opinion on the merits of the internal complaint. The Director General thus rendered his final decision without the benefit of such an opinion, thereby disregarding an essential safeguard inherent in the right of appeal, which is the requirement that his final decision be informed by the opinion of the Committee. The decision is thus tainted with another irregularity.

    Keywords:

    final decision; internal appeals body; investigation report;



  • Judgment 4157


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the moral injury she suffered because her evaluation for 2013 was irregular and contests the partial modification thereof.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    Even though the compensation awarded by the Director General was insufficient, the latter’s decision is not such as to cause additional moral injury in the complainant’s case.

    Keywords:

    final decision; moral injury;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.11.2022 ^ top