Disclosure of evidence (151,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Disclosure of evidence
Total judgments found: 185
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant] contends that the request for reconsideration he had initially lodged [...] did not receive a reply from the Secretary-General within the period of 45 days specified [...]. According to ITU’s explanations on this point, a decision on the request for reconsideration had in fact been taken but owing to an unfortunate administrative error had been sent to the complainant’s old work email address, meaning that the complainant, who no longer had access to that address, could not be aware of it. That error is plainly regrettable, but the Tribunal notes that, under Staff Rule 11.1.3(7)(b)(ii), a staff member who submits a request for reconsideration may, if she or he does not receive a reply to that request within the prescribed time limit, submit an appeal to the Appeal Board, as the complainant did in this case. Moreover, it is not disputed that ITU forwarded the decision rejecting the complainant’s request for reconsideration and the appended documents to him during the appeal procedure before the Appeal Board and that he had the opportunity to comment on those documents in that procedure. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the failure to provide proper notification of the decision in question did not, in the present case, in fact breach the complainant’s right of appeal nor in consequence render the final decision taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure unlawful.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; notification; time limit;
Judgment 4554
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision deriving from the Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 2/15 to require the recipients of the new retirement pension for health reasons to cease performing gainful activities or employment or to refrain from performing such activities or employment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal [...] notes that, although the file shows that [...] the EPO sent the complainant tables showing the method used to calculate his pension, it cannot be considered, as the Organisation submits, that the complainant’s request for information has thereby become moot, particularly since the tables were not accompanied by any explanations in words and, moreover, they were expressly presented as being only provisional. If the complainant were to continue to wish for additional information concerning the method used to calculate his pension, the Organisation should, under its duty to provide information and its duty of care, endeavour to meet his expectations, provided, at least, that they are formulated with sufficient clarity (see, on this point, Judgment 3963, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3963
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty of care; duty to inform; pension;
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 10
Extract:
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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347, 3831, 3995, 4217
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence; harassment; inquiry;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] notes that the redacted investigation report was not sent to the complainant until after the JAB had made a recommendation to that effect in its report [...].
[...]
In those circumstances, [...] the fact that the complainant did not receive the investigation report until she was informed of the President’s final decision resulted in her being deprived of the opportunity to challenge the findings of the investigation effectively during the appeal proceedings before the JAB.
[T]he Tribunal must conclude that the procedure followed before the JAB was also unlawful in that the JAB was not provided with all the evidence which would have enabled it to give a fully informed decision on the internal appeal before it (see, to that effect, Judgment 1372, consideration 11). In consequence, the complainant was deprived of the right to have her internal appeal properly examined (on the obligation of any international organisation to ensure that the rules are correctly applied and due process followed, see, inter alia, Judgments 2219, 2654, 2700 and 3065).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1372, 2219, 2654, 2700, 3065
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; inquiry; internal procedure; report;
Judgment 4530
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the effective date of termination of his appointment, which had previously been deferred on a number of occasions due to his sick leave.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant seeks the disclosure of “any and all documents, reports, correspondence, e-mails, notes, records, memoranda, letters, notices, file contents, minutes, minuted phone calls, or any other documents or items in the possession of the Administration that in any way describes, comments on, relates or refers to, controls, records, and/or evidences, in general or specifically, the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment, in particular medical records or reports indicating that the [c]omplainant was fit to return to work at the time of his termination, as well as the medical assessment made by the WHO Staff Physician purportedly relied upon by the GBA in its report (with which assessment to date the [c]omplainant has never been provided)”. The request is rejected as it is cast in such wide and general terms that it constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 3, and 4086, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4086, 4247
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4524
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint, as a development reassignment, Ms V.M. to the post of Client Relationship Manager.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he duty to produce documents does not extend to confidential interview reports (see, for example, Judgments 3032, consideration 11, and 4023, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 4023
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; selection procedure;
Judgment 4522
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of confidentiality and the refusal to disclose two documents.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; investigation;
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.
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
Since the Tribunal’s role is to determine whether the Director General and the preliminary investigation report on which he based his decision [...] demonstrate a careful examination of the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of, it is clear that the Tribunal is not in a position to do so without having the entire investigation report available. [...]
In such a situation, the Tribunal could therefore only remit the case to the Organisation for a fresh examination of the complainant’s harassment complaint for it to be properly handled.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; confidentiality; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4467
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the recruitment process and the resulting appointment for the post of Client Relationship Manager, for which he had applied.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant alleges that his right to a fair internal appeal procedure was violated as the IAEA did not provide him with proof of the successful candidate’s qualifications. He argues that, contrary to the Tribunal’s case law that such information cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, he did not have all of the evidence on which the contested decision was based. He submits that in the absence of the disclosure there is no evidence that when the successful candidate submitted her application she possessed the required qualifications to fill the contested post. The allegation is unfounded. In the first place, the case law states that a 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, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. The decision to appoint the successful candidate, which the complainant centrally contests, was not a decision which was made against the complainant. Moreover, perhaps as the case was sent directly to the Tribunal, the complainant only requested the disclosure of documents during the course of these proceedings with no evidence that the decision which he contests was based on some of the requested documents.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; selection procedure;
Judgment 4463
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the disclosure of his medical situation.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the request for production of the file is based on extremely general allegations and is therefore merely a “fishing expedition”, which the relevant case law does not allow (see, in particular, Judgments 2097, consideration 23, and 2497, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097, 2497
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4457
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 28
Extract:
First, since the beginning of the dispute, the Organization has refused to provide the complainant with the recommendation that he be summarily dismissed issued by the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources Management to the Director-General on the basis of paragraphs 11 and 14 of Item 11.3 of the Human Resources Manual. However, it is settled case law that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which an authority bases its decision against her or him and that the employing organisation cannot withhold such evidence on the grounds of confidentiality (see, for example, Judgments 2700, consideration 6, 3863, consideration 18, or 4293, consideration 4). UNESCO, which in this case confines itself essentially to arguing that the aforementioned recommendation is part of an “internal and confidential procedure”, does not thus advance a sound reason for refusing to provide that document.
Second, it appears that the complainant was not given the opportunity to view, as permitted under Staff Rule 104.10, the personal file that UNESCO held on him. Although the Organization states in its surrejoinder that the complainant could “inspect his personal file at any time”, the evidence shows that he could not actually exercise that right in practice because he was prohibited from entering the Organization’s premises and because of the failure to respond to the steps he had taken, in particular in the run-up to the Appeals Board hearing, with a view to gaining access to that file.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 3863, 4293
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4452
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to suspend him with pay and then without pay during the disciplinary procedure for misconduct as well as the appointment of a colleague to what he describes as his “job and functions”.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant seeks the production of certain documents concerning the engagement of the consultancy firm. He does not establish the potential relevance of these documents to the issues in this proceeding. Accordingly, this request is refused.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4447
133rd Session, 2022
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of some of her functions, arguing that such removal amounted to de facto demotion.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence and other materials on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him, and, under normal circumstances, such materials cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents (see, for example, Judgment 4412, consideration 14). It is also well established that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all of the materials an appeal body uses in an internal appeal, and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process (see, for example, Judgment 3586, consideration 17). These principles were violated when the complainant was not provided with her own copy of the external lawyer’s opinion before the hearing.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4412
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4437
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post following her transfer.
Consideration 15
Extract:
While it is regrettable that the complainant was not sent the final version of that report, drawn up after consideration of her comments, that defect was remedied in this case by the disclosure to the complainant of that document, which was produced by UNESCO as an annex to its reply in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3117, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein). The plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3117
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; post classification;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The FAO’s failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the selection report, which it disclosed to the Appeals Committee, violated the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, impeded her right of appeal and inhibited her ability to fully argue her case before the Appeals Committee in full knowledge of all facts of the case. It thereby tainted the internal appeal procedure, rather than the selection process as the complainant seems to suggest. This procedural irregularity is therefore not a basis for cancelling the selection process as the complainant requests. However, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it rejected the Appeals Committee’s recommendation to immediately disclose a redacted copy of the selection report to the complainant and to award her adequate moral damages for the breach of procedural fairness (due process).
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; moral injury; selection procedure;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disclosure of evidence; investigation;
Judgment 4377
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he was promised promotion to grade D-2.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant has requested that the Tribunal order the disclosure of various documents. The Tribunal notes that WHO produced, as an annex to its reply, some of the documents in question and gave reasonable explanations as to why it could not provide others. In these circumstances, the disclosure of additional documents will not be ordered.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant has [...] asked that the IOC be ordered to produce various documents. However, the IOC has submitted, as annexes to the reply, the various documents of which disclosure was requested in the complaint. While the complainant has requested, in her rejoinder, the production of several additional documents, the Tribunal considers that the disclosure of these documents – whose very existence is highly doubtful – is not actually necessary to resolve the dispute. It will not therefore order further disclosure.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4357
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s pleas in relation to the production of documents are of substance. It is sufficient to refer only to the request of the complainant in his statement of appeal dated 12 December 2016. Quite explicitly he sought, inter alia, the selection reports for vacancy announcements [...]. In its report [...] the Appeals Board explained why it rejected this request. It said that “[n]one of the confidential selection report constitutes an essential document upon which the Impugned Decision not to shortlist the [complainant] for the position was based”. It also characterised other aspects of the request for the production of documents as a fishing expedition. This approach is plainly at odds with the Tribunal’s case law. What the complainant was seeking was evidence to which he was entitled, even if in a redacted form (see Judgment 4293, consideration 4, citing Judgment 4023, consideration 5). While these reports, as completed, are entirely unsupportive of one of his central arguments in these proceedings (who did the shortlisting), they could have been to the opposite effect. Moreover if they had been provided, the complainant may have abandoned this argument and concentrated on others. The Tribunal notes that these reports have been provided in these proceedings as a result of a request of the Tribunal. However, the complainant, who makes a clear distinction in the complaint form and in his submissions between moral and punitive damages, does not seek moral damages for that failure. This breach does not warrant, as sought by the complainant, an award of punitive damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023, 4293
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
