|
|
 |
|
|
Final decision (657, 27, 28, 30, 545,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Final decision
Total judgments found: 82
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The wording of th[e] letter [in question] makes it plain that it was not intended to convey a decision taken by the Executive Director but by the Director-General himself, in a procedure commonly used in such cases at the ILO and, mutatis mutandis, in many other international organisations. The matter of whether the power to sign this letter had been granted is therefore irrelevant and the plea must be dismissed in accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law in this matter (see, for example, Judgments 4291, considerations 17 and 18, 3352, consideration 7, and 2836, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 3352, 4291
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegation of power; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4760
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to establish a medical board to examine the percentage of her permanent loss of function.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim moot; complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4674
136th Session, 2023
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
A difficulty with this approach of the Board is that while it may be true, based on its findings, that the complainant should have known, and possibly inferentially did know, “some” of her conduct was harassment, the Board made no finding that this was true of all the conduct charged against her as misconduct and proven to its satisfaction. This is not a case where each alleged act of misconduct was identified, separately, as warranting the sanction of dismissal. It was the aggregation of conduct “creating a hostile work environment over an extended period of time” which underlay the decision to dismiss. Additionally, one instance where the complainant had caused staff to cry occurred within two years of the complaint against her being lodged by the Staff Association in September 2016. Her complaint about lack of warning was directed to events over the entire preceding nine years comprehended by the charges, which events occurred, in the main, before 2014.
In the impugned decision, the Director effectively repeated this flawed analysis of the Board though, significantly, omitted the word “some” (referred to earlier) in saying that “the Board found that your conduct was ‘so clearly out of bounds that [you] could not help but know that it was improper’”. As just discussed, no such compendious finding was made by the Board in relation to all the conduct relied upon by the Director in confirming the dismissal of the complainant by rejecting her appeal. This material flaw in the analysis by the Director was compounded by her saying that the complainant’s assertion that the Director of Administration and the HRM Director “tolerated” her conduct did not provide the complainant with a defence when her actions were so obviously a violation of the Harassment Policy. This comment is not motivated save to the extent that it involved a purported adoption of what the Board had concluded. No such general conclusion had been reached by the Board […].
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; final decision; misconduct; motivation;
Judgment 4641
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the interim results of his job grade evaluation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant has failed to challenge a final decision as required by paragraph 1 of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, which states 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 that the “decision” contained in the 2 May 2013 letter that the complainant purported to challenge was a mere step towards what eventually became a final challengeable decision of 9 October 2013, which informed him of the outcome of his job evaluation and which he has contested in another internal appeal.
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4616
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision finding that she had harassed another staff member and imposing a written reprimand on her.
Consideration 9
Extract:
As the Tribunal’s case law establishes, 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 4307, consideration 15, and 3994, consideration 12). Accordingly, having accepted the advice of the Advisory Board, the Secretary-General was under no obligation to provide further reasons for his decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4307
Keywords:
final decision; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4587
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[O]ne matter should be noted. As is apparent from the [applicable] provisions […], the Appellate Body’s decisions are final. Thus, unlike the appellate framework in many international organizations, the final decision on an appeal does not rest with the Executive Head of the organization. In its pleas, the South Centre challenges some of the reasoning and conclusions of the Appellate Body.
Given that this body is invested under the South Centre’s Regulations with the power to make a final decision binding on the organization, it may be doubted that the South Centre is able to impeach its decision-making in the Tribunal. However, this issue was not raised in the pleas and nothing more needs to be said in this judgment.
Keywords:
estoppel; final decision;
Judgment 4558
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to reimburse the costs incurred in connection with his third complaint to the Tribunal.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that it is contradictory and regrettable that the Organisation submits before it that the decision communicated to the complainant was not final while it had nevertheless specified, in its email [...], that the complainant could not submit a request for review. While an organisation has a duty to correct any mistakes made by an employee in the exercise of her or his right of appeal, it has an even greater duty not to misdirect an employee to the wrong venue by incorrectly telling her or him that a request for review is not the right remedy or that her or his only possible recourse is to file a complaint with the Tribunal and then criticise her or him for having followed its directions.
Above all, however, the Tribunal notes that an organisation cannot exempt the complainant from the requirement to exhaust internal remedies when the applicable provisions of the staff rules and regulations do not authorise it to do so, and still less indicate wrongly to the employee concerned that she or he can file a complaint directly with the 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: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which “the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations” (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
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; motivation of final decision; 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; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants contend that the impugned decisions contain no reasoning and solely relied on the Appeals Committee’s opinion which is not acceptable and biased. The Tribunal’s case law has it that a final decision may accept the opinion or recommendations of an internal appeal body without further analysis (see, for example, Judgment 3994, consideration 12), but must be motivated if it rejects the opinion and recommendations (see Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). Accordingly, the fact that the impugned decisions merely accepted the Appeals Committee’s reasoning does not vitiate those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 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; motivation of final decision;
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; motivation of final decision;
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; motivation of final decision;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
