Right to information (664,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right to information
Total judgments found: 8

• Judgment 4900

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges, in his first complaint, the partial rejection of his harassment complaint before investigation and, in his fourth complaint, the rejection of his harassment complaint after investigation.

  Consideration 31

  Extract:

  [A] staff member who lodges such a complaint is included as a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well-founded, even though she or he will not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator of recognised harassment. In Judgment 4547, consideration 3, the Tribunal pointed out the following in this respect:
  “[...] The staff member concerned is [...] entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541 [...], consideration 4, both of which concern harassment complaints). In the present case, and since such an explanation of reasons could, inter alia, support a possible claim for compensation for the injury suffered, the complainant should have been adequately informed, in the President’s final decision of 23 October 2018, of the reasons why the organisation did or did not recognise the existence of harassment by her supervisor (see Judgments 3096, consideration 15, and abovementioned 4541, consideration 4). As she was not, the decision of 23 October 2018 is fundamentally flawed, since the staff member who engaged the procedure, while not entitled to be informed of any measures taken against the alleged harasser, is entitled to a decision on the question of harassment itself (see, to that effect, Judgments 3096, consideration 15, 4207, considerations 14 and 15, and [...] 4541, consideration 4).”
  (See also, in this connection, Judgment 4739, consideration 10.)
  From this point of view, it is useful to recall that a finding of harassment can sometimes be made in the victim’s favour without the perpetrator necessarily having to undergo disciplinary measures as a result (see, for example, Judgment 4601, consideration 8). In this respect, in Judgment 4602, consideration 14, the Tribunal observed that, even where no provision in the internal regulations, rules or policies of an organization provides for the possibility of a compensation to the individual who filed a harassment complaint, its case law recognises the right to such compensation when properly supported, recalling that it is also well settled in the case law that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members (see also, in this respect, Judgment 4207, consideration 15).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3965, 4207, 4207, 4541, 4547, 4601, 4602, 4739
  

  Keywords:

  harassment; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4820

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;
  

  Considerations 10-11

  Extract:

  It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
  It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
  The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
  The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
  However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
  

  Keywords:

  confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4739

  
  137th Session, 2024
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  As regards the complainant’s argument that his due process rights were violated, the Tribunal recalls its case law, recently confirmed in Judgment 4313, consideration 7, that “a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all material evidence that is likely to have a bearing on the outcome of her or his claims (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a)) and that failure to disclose that evidence constitutes a serious breach of the requirements of due process (see Judgment 3071, under 37)”, as well as that “in the context of an investigation into allegations of harassment, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, under 8, 3617, under 12, 4108, under 4, 4109, under 4, 4110, under 4, and 4111, under 4)”. Also, in Judgment 4217, consideration 4, the Tribunal held that “by refusing to provide the complainant with the [investigation] report […] during the internal appeals procedure it nevertheless unlawfully deprived her of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation” and “the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the report during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process”.
  In Judgment 4547, consideration 10, the Tribunal held that:
  “It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an international organisation is bound to grant a request from the staff member concerned for a copy of the report delivered by the investigative body at the end of an investigation into a harassment complaint, even if that means the report must be redacted in order to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation, in particular the testimony gathered during that investigation (see, in particular, Judgments 3347, considerations 19 to 21, and 3831, consideration 17, and also Judgments 3995, consideration 5, and 4217, consideration 4).”
  The legal vacuum in the Global Fund’s rules does not absolve the Administration from the obligation to disclose the investigation report to a person reporting harassment.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767, 3065, 3071, 3347, 3347, 3617, 3831, 3995, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4217, 4313, 4547
  

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, recently recalled in Judgment 4547, consideration 3, “a staff member who lodges a harassment complaint is plainly a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well founded, even though she or he would not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator in the event that the harassment was recognised. The staff member concerned is therefore entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4547
  

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The Global Fund’s refusal to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, even with reasonable redactions to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of the investigation, during the internal appeal process, seriously breached the complainant’s right to due process. It unlawfully deprived him of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process. It follows that the impugned decision […] was tainted by a fundamental flaw and must therefore be set aside […].

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeal; investigation report; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4547

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal emphasises [...] that a staff member who lodges a harassment complaint is plainly a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well founded, even though she or he would not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator in the event that the harassment was recognised. The staff member concerned is therefore entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541, [...] consideration 4, both of which concern harassment complaints). In the present case, and since such an explanation of reasons could, inter alia, support a possible claim for compensation for the injury suffered, the complainant should have been adequately informed, in the President’s final decision [...], of the reasons why the organisation did or did not recognise the existence of harassment by her supervisor (see Judgments 3096, consideration 15, and [...] 4541, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3096, 3965, 4207, 4541, 4541
  

  Keywords:

  harassment; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4035

  
  126th Session, 2018
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant accuses her former supervisor of moral harassment.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [F]irstly, an official’s right to be informed of the composition of the Appeals Board, the main purpose of which is to enable members of the Board to be recused, does not entitle her or him to be given the names of the Administration’s representative and observer, who are not members of the Board.
  Secondly, even assuming that the complainant was entitled to be provided with the documents that she wished to consult, the evidence does not show that the failure to disclose those documents had, in this case, a material impact on her right to be heard.

  Keywords:

  composition of the internal appeals body; disclosure of evidence; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3640

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant submits that [...] the Ethics Adviser failed to inform him of his right to be assisted or represented by a third person for the purpose of his defence during the preliminary assessment of the complaint. However, the defendant organisation contends, without this being contradicted by the complainant in his rejoinder, that the Ethics Adviser had explicitly drawn his attention to the provisions of item 18.2 expressly mentioning this right. The Tribunal considers that, in the instant case, this manner of proceeding satisfied the duty to inform, especially as the complainant is highly qualified and was thus plainly quite capable of understanding the content of these provisions.

  Keywords:

  due process; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3414

  
  119th Session, 2015
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to remove his name from an e-mail distribution list on the ground that he had been released from his regular duties to work as President of the Staff Council.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "Communication between officials or groups of officials of an international organisation is essential for the effective functioning of the organisation. With the advent of e-mail, one practical and common means of communication within a group involves the creation of e-mail distribution lists so that information contained in an e-mail can be given routinely to all officials who have or may have a common interest in knowing that information by virtue of membership in that group. There is no reason to doubt that in the ordinary course the identity of officials who will receive such information by being on a particular distribution list, is a matter to be determined by the administration of the organisation by officials who have a leadership role within the group or by others. As a generalisation, no individual official has a right to assert that she or he is entitled to particular information simply by virtue of her or his own assessment of the position occupied by the official in the organisation’s structure and the correlative need for information in the face of a decision by another official that the information will not be provided."

  Keywords:

  right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3094

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal makes the following observation. The complainant’s claims that she is entitled to participate in the investigation and that due process entitles her to information about the course of the investigation are equally without merit.

  Keywords:

  investigation; right to information;