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: 70

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • 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;



  • Judgment 4131


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the President of the Office to reject his appeal against the referral of his case to the Appeals Committee.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complaint is irreceivable. Although the complainant has formally exhausted the internal means of redress available to him, his internal appeal was directed against what was merely a step in the process which would culminate in a final decision on his appeal. According to the case law, the steps leading to a final decision can be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning that final decision (see, for example, Judgment 3961, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein; Judgment 3958, consideration 15; and Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860, 3958, 3961

    Keywords:

    final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4118


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    With respect to the claims directed against the “decision” of the Medical Committee [...], the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such,cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office [...]. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee [...].

    Keywords:

    final decision; internal procedure; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4117


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the finding that his invalidity was not caused by an occupational disease.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    As noted by the Tribunal in Judgment 4046, consideration 5, in some circumstances, the Tribunal has treated a challenge to what has been identified in the complaint as a decision but, in fact, was an anterior step to the challengeable final administrative decision, as a challenge to the final administrative decision itself. An example is found in Judgment 2715, consideration 4. In that case the Organization concerned objected to receivability, inter alia, because the complaint was mistakenly directed against the Administration Committee’s preliminary opinion, rather than the Secretary General’s final decision. The Tribunal sought to identify what the complainant intended by the complaint and treated the complaint as a manifestation of an intention to challenge the final administrative decision. While, explicitly, the complainant had challenged and sought to set aside the “decision” of the Administration Committee, the Tribunal treated the complaint as being directed against the final administrative decision of the Secretary General. This course is open to the Tribunal in the present case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715, 4046

    Keywords:

    final decision;



  • Judgment 4113


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him and contends that the EPO breached its duty to treat him with dignity.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complaint form and the complainant’s pleas (both his brief and rejoinder) do not identify with any particularity precisely what the decision is that he seeks to impugn in these proceedings. The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaint. Viewing the complaint form and the complainant’s pleas as benevolently as possible in the circumstances, his complaint either challenges the decision not to promote him or the decision not to accede to his request for an expedited hearing of his appeal or, perhaps, both. The latter decision is not a final administrative decision with operative legal effect. At best, it was a decision made as a step towards a final administrative decision, had one ever been made in his internal appeal (see Judgment 3890, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3890

    Keywords:

    final decision; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4096


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The claims against the decisions concerning the abolition of the complainant’s post and his separation from service, which occurred [...] after the complainant had filed his appeal before the RBA [...], are irreceivable as they do not challenge final decisions within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Keywords:

    claim; final decision; receivability of application;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 14.10.2021 ^ top