Confidential evidence (149, 150,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Confidential evidence
Total judgments found: 87
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
"Statements made in legal proceedings are privileged, whether those statements are made in writing in the pleadings or orally in the course of a hearing. The consequence is that, even if defamatory, they cannot be the subject of legal proceedings or sanction. The privilege, sometimes referred to as 'in court privilege', exists, not for the benefit of the parties or their representatives, but because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course. In Judgment 1391 the Tribunal recognised that the privilege attaches to its proceedings, as well as those of internal appeal bodies. [...]
[T]he Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the privilege that attaches to statements made in the course of internal appeal proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal has concentrated on statements made by staff members. However, the privilege is the same in the case of statements made by or on behalf of defendant organisations, and they must be allowed a similar degree of freedom in what they say and the manner of its expression. Even so, a statement will constitute a perversion of a defendant organisation's right of reply if it is wholly irrelevant and it can only serve an improper purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1391
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; confidential evidence; consequence; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; freedom of speech; iloat; internal appeals body; judicial review; language; misuse of authority; official; oral proceedings; organisation; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; reply; respect for dignity; right; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has consistently held, the staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)).
As the Organization points out, there may indeed be some special cases in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. But such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers (see Judgment 1756, under 10)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2229
Keywords:
case law; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; exception; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal;
Judgment 2524
100th Session, 2006
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"Although the complainant provided the report of [her doctor] to the Joint Appeals Panel, that did not amount to implied authorisation for it to be given to [her two successive supervisors] for their comments (see Judgment 2271, under 7). There were other means available to the Administration to obtain answers from [the supervisors] to the claims made by the complainant. The disclosure to them of the medical report was a serious breach of confidence and one that, in the circumstances, was particularly insensitive."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271
Keywords:
confidential evidence; internal appeals body; medical opinion; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; supervisor;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes [...] that in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the [Joint Appeals Board] must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and that those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; applicable law; confidential evidence; due process; exception; general principle; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2396
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Any administrative or disciplinary body of an organisation which consults a third party to obtain information concerning the professional behaviour of one of its staff members must naturally avoid impairing the latter's dignity and reputation. In the first place, it absolutely must ensure that the presumption of his innocence is maintained, and if its action is such as to breach the presumption of innocence or the fundamental rights of the staff member, making that action confidential is of no avail."
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; executive body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; qualifications; respect for dignity; right;
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the Office, as is its duty, to protect the reputation of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1619). But it notes that the defendant was under no obligation to seek the complainant's agreement as to the form and the terms of the communication to be sent to the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report and to those who subsequently indicated publicly that they had had knowledge of the report's conclusions. The Tribunal will not issue any injunction in this respect, but will leave it to the defendant to inform the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report, through whatever channels it deems appropriate, that it was regrettable that the report, which should have remained confidential and which concerns persons who were entitled to the protection of that confidentiality, should have been unlawfully circulated, which was all the more serious for the fact that some of its content was defamatory."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1619
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; communication to third party; confidential evidence; discretion; harassment; internal appeals body; official; organisation; organisation's duties; report; right; supervisor;
Consideration 13
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "Had this report been seen only by the persons entitled to receive it, it might not have injured the complainant's reputation, given that it was issued by an authority of the Organization which had no power of decision. However, as pointed out above, the whole of the report was communicated to persons who were not entitled to see it and there is no doubt that this disclosure, which was contrary to the obligation of confidentiality by which the Ombudsperson is bound pursuant to Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations, caused the complainant injury warranting compensation, even though the report was circulated 'on a confidential basis'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; communication to third party; compensation; confidential evidence; harassment; injury; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Administration accessed the complainant's computer while she was on sick leave. The Tribunal considers that "the events which occurred during the complainant's absence on sick leave were most unfortunate. However [...] it is understandable that, given the urgency attending the Sub-Committee meeting preparations on which the complainant was working, her computer was accessed. [The] matter could and should have been handled with greater sensitivity and with proper regard to the complainant's privacy. Even so, those events fall far short of establishing hostility amounting to harassment."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; sick leave; working relations;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 28-29
Extract:
The complainant submits that the impugned decision is vitiated by a breach of due process of law, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel was kept from him. The Commission points out that this recommendation is confidential and, thus, there was no breach of due process. "Should a claim of confidentiality be made, for example, where a recommendation contains immaterial information on a third party, it is for the party making that claim to establish the grounds upon which the claim is based. In such a case, precautions may be taken to maintain confidentiality. In the present case, the Commission provides no grounds for its argument of confidentiality other than the need for the Personnel Advisory Panel to be able freely to discuss relevant matters. In a decision-making process which is subject to internal review and to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; burden of proof; complaint; confidential evidence; decision; formal flaw; freedom of speech; grounds; iloat; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2304
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246
Keywords:
application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2271
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The confidential nature of medical information concerning the state of health of staff members constitutes a key element of their right to privacy. It is no doubt both necessary and legitimate for an international organisation, like any employer, to investigate requests for sick leave, to examine medical certificates and to have the health of its staff members checked by appropriate means. Such information should be gathered and processed on a fully confidential basis, however, and should never be communicated to third parties without the explicit consent of the person concerned. [...] The fact that the members of the Appeals Committee are bound by an obligation of confidentiality does not mean that information covered by medical secrecy can be disclosed to them without the consent of the persons concerned."
Keywords:
communication to third party; confidential evidence; internal appeals body; lack of consent; medical certificate; medical records; organisation's duties; right to privacy; sick leave;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the principles relating to the protection of information, staff members are entitled, even outside the context of a dispute, to have access to significant information concerning them which is in the possession of the administration [...] This applies a fortiori in the context of a procedure in which such information is used to support a decision affecting a staff member. There are, however, special cases in which higher dictates preclude its disclosure (on this issue, see Judgment 1756, under 10(b)). A provision [...] which stipulates that the reports of joint disciplinary committees or other boards of enquiry are confidential, cannot be construed as preventing the disclosure of such reports to a staff member adversely affected by a measure taken against him. otherwise, the higher principle of the right to be heard would be violated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756
Keywords:
confidential evidence; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; right to reply;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents.
The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition; iloat; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; official; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2062
91st Session, 2001
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal's practice is to consider any items that are material to the case".
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; practice; submissions; tribunal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not use [the confidential documents submitted by the organisation] to the complainant's detriment unless he has had the opportunity to see them beforehand".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; right to reply; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 2045
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has recalled in Judgment 1684 [...], medical records are strictly personal and the staff member's right to see them may not ordinarily be challenged."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty to inform; medical records; right;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17(D)
Extract:
The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; due process in disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; evidence; witness;
Judgment 1848
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant questions the right of the insurance company to which she is affiliated to contact her physicians directly to seek information. "The law is clear that [the insurance company] is entitled to any information which identifies the nature of the alleged illness and allows it to determine whether the prescribed treatment is appropriate and necessary [...] Of course the complainant is entitled to require that such information only be made available to [the insurance company's] medical adviser and be treated by the latter in confidence but she is not entitled to withhold from them any right of access whatsoever to the required medical information. Her unwillingness to allow such access goes against her duty to deal in good faith with her insurers."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1288
Keywords:
conduct; confidential evidence; elements; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical consultant; medical records; refusal; safeguard; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1728
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"As for the right to be heard before termination, it must of course be respected where there is a proposal to terminate an appointment for disciplinary reasons or for unsatisfactory performance. A reduction-in-force committee does not, however, make findings of that kind but performs very different functions. That is clear from Manual paragraph II.9.340.3, which requires assessment 'essentially' on the basis of appraisal reports and other written records of performance and service."
Keywords:
complainant; confidential evidence; duty to inform; internal appeals body; limits; organisation's duties; personal file; selection board;
Judgment 1659
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The defendant strongly objects to the complainants' producing privileged documents which it says they should never have disclosed without leave from the Secretary-General and which should therefore be discounted. The complainants explain that when still on the staff they were regularly sent such documents. So it is hard to see what is wrong with their relying thereon in pleadings that are confidential anyway."
Keywords:
acceptance; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; executive head; iloat; submissions;
Judgment 1637
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant came by and produced the minutes of a meeting of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims even though the document was privileged. "The Organization objects and in its reply asks the Tribunal to disregard [the minutes]. Yet the [document] forms part of the case records, the complainant did not obtain it by deceit, its authenticity is not in dispute, and in citing it the Organization seeks to belittle its importance. There are no grounds for striking out a text that is material to the case and that in any event the Tribunal might have ordered the defendant to disclose."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; submissions;
Judgment 1596
82nd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"A legal opinion obtained for the purpose of litigation will ordinarily be privileged. But the defendant does not deny having made the text of the legal opinion available to representatives of the Staff Committee. Having been given the text without any condition or rider, the Staff Association was entitled to make copies available to its members."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; exception; staff union;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
