L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > irrégularité

Judgment No. 3065

Decision

1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. The ILO shall pay the complainant compensation in the amount of 20,000 Swiss francs for moral injury.
3. It shall also pay her 2,000 francs in costs.

Considerations 7-8

Extract:

The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.

Keywords

report; evidence; testimony; inquiry; oral proceedings; adversarial proceedings; organisation's duties; duty to inform; breach; flaw; procedural flaw; mistake of fact; consequence; elements; harassment; right to be heard; investigation

Judgment keywords

Keywords

complaint allowed; decision quashed; inquiry; adversarial proceedings; flaw; investigation

Consideration 10

Extract:

According to the Tribunal’s case law, an accusation of harassment requires that “an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused”. Furthermore, “[i]ts duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context […], that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account […]” (see Judgment 2973, under 16, and the case law cited therein).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2973

Keywords

inquiry; harassment; investigation



 
Dernière mise à jour: 16.09.2020 ^ haut