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 3586
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated 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 adjudicating body such as the HBA uses in an internal appeal, and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process. WHO breached due process by not having provided the relevant documents to the complainant. It also breached due process by not disclosing all of the agreements and related information, which could have assisted the HBA to have made a properly informed determination whether financial constraint was a valid reason for not extending the complainant’s contract.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process;
Judgment 3499
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the rejection of their appeal against the creation of the Ethics Office and the decision to transfer another staff member to the position of Chief Ethics Officer.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he complainants seek the production of documents. However they do so in the most general terms which are tantamount to a fishing expedition (see, for example, Judgments 2510, under 7, 2142, under 17)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142, 2510
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 3490
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; delay; disclosure of evidence; internal appeal; post classification;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"This case illustrates very well the negative consequences flowing from an unfounded refusal to make the requisite disclosure. It is well established in the case law 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”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2700, under 6; see also Judgment 3264, under 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 3264
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Consideration 33
Extract:
"The complainant is […] entitled to moral damages for the IAEA’s breach of its duty to disclose at a minimum, the key document on which the decision was based."
Keywords:
delay; disclosure of evidence; moral injury;
Judgment 3487
120th Session, 2015
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to allow a “Note for the File” to remain on his personal file.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant has requested the production of a large number of documents. That request is refused because it is cast in the most general terms and constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgment 2497, consideration 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 3419
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant was entitled to moral damages for identified errors of the Administration.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that it is unnecessary to order the disclosure of documents that the complainant requested. In the first place, the request has been overtaken insofar as it relates to documents that concern the challenge to the selection of Mr G. for the post and for the matters related to the complainant’s direct appointment. This follows from the finding that those aspects of the complaint are moot. Both parties have supported their submissions on moral damages, costs and interest by extensive and complete submissions and such documents that are necessary to elucidate these issues, which turn primarily on legal principles. In any event, the request for disclosure is quite wide and is of a general nature. It is based on the speculation that something might be found in the documents to further the complainant’s case. The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on that basis (see, for example, Judgment 2497, under 14 and 15). Accordingly, the Tribunal also rejects the requests for the production of documents.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 3418
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal recognized the moral injury caused to the complainant and determined the amount of compensation.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant requested an oral hearing. However the Tribunal is satisfied that the issues raised in the proceedings can be resolved having regard to the pleas and the documentary evidence. A request was made for the production of documents. The request was cast in the most general and imprecise terms and should be rejected."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 3415
119th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to extend his fix-term contract beyond the normal tour of service.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The approach of the IAEA is entirely unacceptable. The documents sought by the complainant and information about the existence of this alleged practice is, in substance, peculiarly within the knowledge of the organisation. While international organisations are entitled to defend proceedings before the Tribunal, and even do so robustly, it is singularly unhelpful and inappropriate for an organisation to refuse to provide documents sought by a complainant that are patently relevant to his case and then argue that the complainant has not furnished relevant evidence in support of that case. In the absence of a clear and unequivocal denial by the IAEA that the practice, as alleged, had not existed, an inference can be drawn, and is drawn, that there had been a practice as identified by the complainant [...]."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 3377
118th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision rejecting his harassment complaint, especially because he was deprived of work and because the Organisation breached its duty to treat him with dignity.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a document upon which a decision is based cannot be withheld from the concerned staff member. This disclosure obligation is not overcome by disclosure in the context of the Tribunal’s proceedings. However in the present case, the failure to disclose the correspondences did not prejudice the complainant (see Judgment 2899, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2899
Keywords:
delay; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 3345
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as elected staff representatives, in their individual capacities as staff members and on behalf of thirty-six staff members employed under “long-term short-term contracts”, challenge the appropriateness of employment under such contracts and claim certain rights for such employees.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The first procedural issue is a request by the complainants for the production of documents. The request is cast in the most general terms and constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgment 2497, consideration 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 3290
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Consideration 21
Extract:
As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3264 [...]:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law 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”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality [citation omitted]” (Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process;
Judgment 3287
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who reported his suspicions that someone was unlwafully accessing his professional email account, impugned the decision to deny him access to the investigation report.
Considerations 15 and 16
Extract:
"The complainant cited one judgement of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal to support a request for the provision of documents in a broadly analogous situation [...]. However the complainant cited no judgment of the Tribunal or another international administrative tribunal that has held, in the face of a provision such as paragraph 10, that an organisation must or even should make available a report containing confidential information gathered from various sources during an investigation to a person who requested it even if that person is centrally involved in the investigation. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are fundamental to maintaining a system of internal investigation that is likely to be effective and reveal to the Administration the true position surrounding any particular issue or matter which is the subject of internal audit. It is true that there is a general trend in the case law of the Tribunal towards the production rather than non-disclosure of documents in an Administration’s possession which may bear upon a staff member’s position within the organisation (see, for example, Judgment 1756, consideration 10(b)). [...]
[T]his case provides an example of where a specific provision effectively denying disclosure for the purposes of promoting confidential communications with an internal auditor should be maintained fully and given effect. [...] The complainant had no right to be provided with a copy of the IAOD report and accordingly there was no relevant delay for which he may be entitled to damages."
Keywords:
applicable law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; refusal;
Judgment 3272
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a vacant post due to procedural flaw and violation of her right to due process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to be heard; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Considerations 15-16
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 on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).
Although Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations provides that the “proceedings of the [Reports] Board shall be regarded as secret”, this alone does not shield a report of the Board from disclosure to the concerned official. In the absence of any reason in law for non-disclosure of the report, such non-disclosure constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899
Keywords:
breach; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3234
115th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319
Keywords:
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3222
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to disclose some documents related to the procedure concerning his claim for compensation for a service-incurred illness.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence; service-incurred;
Judgment 3216
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party (see Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2700, under 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Board, which ultimately relied upon it, was obliged to advise the complainant of the receipt of new evidence and give her an opportunity to respond before taking it into consideration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2700
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to be heard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Judgment 3209
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.
Considerations 13 and 14
Extract:
The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
"[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence; selection procedure;
Judgment 3200
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant was demoted from grade P-3 to grade P-2 on the grounds that she had harassed and intimidated Ms A., a staff member over whom she had authority.
When the complainant asked towards the beginning of the interview who was accusing her she was told, in effect, that this information would emerge from the questions. This is not what paragraph 5.2 requires. In order to understand what the allegations are and how to respond and frame a defence, an accused would need to be told who had made the allegations. The identity of the accuser is a significant piece of information necessary to inform the accused of the factual context in which the accused’s alleged conduct was said to have occurred. The obligation to inform the accused of the allegations includes an obligation to identify the accuser as part of the factual matrix of what constitutes “the allegation”.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; opening of an investigation; procedural rights during investigation; witness;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Paragraph 5.2 [of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual] must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the fundamental right of due process to know the name of the accuser except in those circumstances where revealing the identity of the accuser could undermine the integrity of the investigation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 5.2 of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; opening of an investigation; procedural rights during investigation; witness;
Judgment 3196
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the implicit rejection of her request for disclosure of a medical report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; medical opinion;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
