ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Right to reply (184,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right to reply
Total judgments found: 144

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

  • Judgment 4106


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to apply to him the sanction of discharge.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he requirement spelled out in the Tribunal’s case law that “an investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made” (see Judgments 2475, under 7, 2771, under 15, 3200, under 10, 3315, under 6, 3682, under 13, 3872, under 6, and 3875, under 3) was respected in the present case. At the outset, it is observed that there is no obligation to inform a staff member that an investigation into certain allegations will be undertaken (see Judgment 2605, under 11). The evidence shows that the complainant was informed at the outset of the investigation interview that the interview related to allegations of misconduct and that he was given the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented, respond to the allegations, and to provide any evidence or name any witnesses to support his responses. He was also given the opportunity to submit any further evidence or information in his defence prior to the conclusion of the investigation. There is no principle in the Tribunal’s case law which supports the complainant’s claim that he should have received detailed information about the allegations prior to the investigation interview.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475, 2605, 2771, 3200, 3315, 3682, 3872, 3875

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; due process; duty to inform; inquiry; right to reply;



  • Judgment 4081


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the case law, the reasons for a decision need not be stated in the decision itself, but may be contained in other documents communicated to the staff member concerned; they may even be set forth in briefs or submissions produced for the first time before the Tribunal, provided that the complainant’s right of appeal is fully respected (see, for example, Judgments 1289, consideration 9, 1817, consideration 6, 2112, consideration 5, or 2927, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; right of appeal; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3911


    125th Session, 2018
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In consideration 8 [of Judgment 1484], the Tribunal [...] reiterated the principle that an organization may not take action which affects a staff member’s status before she or he is heard. It stated as follows:
    “Besides, according to general precepts of administrative law and the law of the international civil service an organization may not unilaterally take action that affects a staff member’s status before letting him have his say: Judgment 1082 […] affirmed that rule in 18: ‘By virtue of their contractual relationship and the trust that therefore prevails between them, an organisation owes its employee a duty to declare its intention of dismissing him and to let him plead his case.’
    The same principle was set out in Judgments 1212 [...] under 2 to 4 and 1395 [...] under 6.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1082, 1212, 1395, 1484

    Keywords:

    general principle; right to reply; termination;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [W]hile the right to a prior written warning may be conferred by an organization’s internal rules, the Tribunal has also stated that it may arise from a general principle of law based on the organization’s duty of good faith and duty of care to its staff members.

    Keywords:

    general principle; right to reply; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 3574


    121st Session, 2016
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment for health reasons.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    health reasons; right to reply; termination;



  • Judgment 3295


    116th Session, 2014
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The complainant also takes the position that PAHO failed to give him a warning or the opportunity to correct the situation prior to bringing disciplinary action. In Judgment 1661, under 3, the Tribunal framed an organisation’s obligations in the following terms: “Before an organisation imposes a disciplinary penalty such as dismissal it must warn the staff member and give him the opportunity not only of stating his own case but also of refuting the organisation’s: in other words, there must be due process. So he must be told of the charges and of the evidence against him. If the proceedings are to be properly adversarial, he must be free to give his own version of the facts, refute that evidence, adduce his own, take part in the discussion of it, and at least once crossquestion the expert and other witnesses. See, for example, Judgments 512 […] under 5; 907 […] under 4; 999 […] under 5; 1082 […] under 18; 1133 […] under 7; 1212 […] under 3; 1228 […] under 4; 1251 […] under 8; 1384 […] under 5, 10 and 15; 1395 […] under 6; 1484 […] under 7 and 8.”"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1661

    Keywords:

    case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; misconduct; organisation's duties; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainant alleges that he was not given a copy of the Ethics Officer’s investigation report and the records of witness interviews. 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” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229

    Keywords:

    advisory body; confidential evidence; decision; effect; general principle; inquiry; international civil servant; provision; report; right; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3294


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to refuse to reclassify one of her former posts.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    post classification; reasonable time; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3269


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that she was submitted to harassment and denounces flaws in the inquiry relating to her harassment allegations.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; delay; harassment; inquiry; organisation's duties; right to reply;



  • 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; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probation; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3223


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
    The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; complaint allowed in part; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • 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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to reply; staff member's interest;



  • 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 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)

    ILOAT reference: Paragraph 5.2 of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's duties; right; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3162


    114th Session, 2013
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his appointment which, in his view, is flawed for breach of due process.

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    "An allegation of dishonesty is an allegation of unsatisfactory conduct that may result in disciplinary action. As such, it must be dealt with in accordance with the organisation’s prescribed procedures (see Judgment 1724, under 14). That was not done in this case. This failure deprived the complainant of an opportunity to defend himself against a serious allegation and reflects a serious breach of his right to due process. The breach is particularly egregious having regard to the complainant’s work and the nature of the allegations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1724

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary measure; due process; general principle; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure; right to reply; written rule;



  • Judgment 3158


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant only became aware of the substitution of one of the members of the Internal Appeals Committee (which occurred after the hearings) when he received a copy of the Internal Appeals Committee’s opinion. For the sake of transparency and due process, the complainant should have been informed at the time of the substitution so that he could exercise his right to contest the composition. The fact that the alternate member voted in the complainant’s favour does not redeem that flaw. Moreover, the alternate member did not attend and participate in the hearing, whereas his participation could have changed or influenced the Internal Appeals Committee’s final opinion."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; consequence; due process; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3126


    113th Session, 2012
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
    "This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; breach; complaint allowed in part; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure; right to reply; termination;



  • Judgment 3083


    112th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[A]n investigation must be conducted in such a way as to ensure that there is an opportunity for the staff member concerned to test the evidence and answer the charge made. In the case of summary dismissal, the decision-maker must be satisfied to the requisite standard that misconduct has occurred as charged and, also, that the misconduct is such as to justify summary dismissal."

    Keywords:

    inquiry; misconduct; rebuttal; right to reply; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 3065


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 & 8

    Extract:

    An investigation was carried out into the complainant's allegations of harassment.
    "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:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; complaint allowed; consequence; decision quashed; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; procedural flaw; report; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 3055


    112th Session, 2012
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[A]s a general rule, an organisation should refrain from passing on damaging information about a staff member. If the recipient of that information has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth [...] it should refrain from passing on damaging information without first giving the staff member an opportunity to challenge it and give his or her own account."

    Keywords:

    communication to third party; duty of care; duty of discretion; injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; rebuttal; right to reply; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2940


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2899


    108th Session, 2010
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    "[T]he right to be heard must be respected in an especially rigorous manner in disciplinary proceedings."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary procedure; organisation's duties; right to reply;

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "By [...] basing his decision on an essential document without having given the person concerned an opportunity to refute its content, the competent authority breached the right to be heard which every staff member possesses and his decision was thus tainted by a major procedural flaw (in this connection, see for example Judgments 69, under 2, and 1881, under 18 to 20)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 69, 1881

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; international civil servant; procedural flaw; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2893


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
    "This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232,
    428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127

    Keywords:

    breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >


 
Last updated: 22.11.2019 ^ top