Right to reply (184,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Right to reply
Total judgments found: 142
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 1386
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
The Tribunal "accepts that the premature dismissal caused him moral injury in relation not only to his family and private life but also to his career prospects. Those prospects suffered from the EPO's having gravely compromised his chances of finding other employment by putting in the documents concerning his dismissal, and in breach of his rights of defence, criticism which could not under the circumstances be reviewed. The complainant shall accordingly receive, over and above the redress which the present judgment in itself affords him, damages".
Keywords:
career; compensation; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; professional injury; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 1384
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant was accused of removing computer equipment from the work place. For that reason the organization decided not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The decision not to renew the complainant's contract was based on loss of confidence consequent upon the finding of misconduct. That finding was based on an error of law as to the burden of proof; rules of procedure relating to the right of defence were seriously violated; essential facts were not taken into consideration; and clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts. so the finding cannot stand, and the plea of loss of confidence which the organization based thereon must be rejected."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; conduct; contract; disregard of essential fact; evidence; fixed-term; misconduct; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant was accused of removing computer equipment from the work place. For that reason the organization did not renew his fixed-term contract. "There were many flaws in the procedure that the organization followed. It did not allow the complainant to be present when statements were taken from the witnesses or to question them. [...] Not only was he denied access to their statements but even their identity was concealed from him. [...] No verbatim record of the statements by the witnesses was ever produced." He never got to see the results of the investigation carried out into the matter and he was not given an opportunity to put forward any arguments in his favour. "The conclusion is that he was denied his right to defend himself before an adverse decision was taken [...]. The complainant's right of defence was seriously prejudiced."
Keywords:
conduct; contract; due process; fixed-term; flaw; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Consideration 15
Extract:
Vide Judgment 999, consideration 4
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999
Keywords:
case law; evidence; misconduct; right to reply;
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
The organization accused the complainant of stealing computer equipment but failed to provide any formal evidence of theft. On the grounds of theft it decided not to renew his fixed-term appointment. The Tribunal sets that decision aside in part for the organization's breach of his right to a hearing and holds that "the flagrant disregard of his right of defence caused him further moral injury" for which he is entitled to an award of damages.
Keywords:
breach; moral injury; right to reply;
Judgment 1376
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Any organisation that is serious about deterring sexual harassment and consequential abuse of authority by a superior officer must be seen to take proper action. In particular victims of such behaviour must feel confident that it will take their allegations seriously and not let them be victimised on that account. In this case the WHO has utterly failed to protect the complainant's rights."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; breach; misuse of authority; moral injury; negligence; organisation's duties; right to reply; sexual harassment; staff member's interest; supervisor;
Judgment 1371
77th Session, 1994
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant's "appraisal reports contain adverse comment by his supervisors, especially on his lack of initiative, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that their views were not honestly held or were prejudiced. He was given a proper opportunity to comment on those views and his comments form part of the reports. In the circumstances the Tribunal disallows his application for the removal of them from his personal file."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317
Keywords:
bias; good faith; lack of injury; performance report; personal file; right to reply; supervisor; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 1369
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"The duty to explain a decision is a general principle of administrative law: the decision-maker must at least give such statement of the reasons for the decision that anyone it affects may defend his rights and the Tribunal may rule on any case before it. But the content of the duty will vary with the nature of the decision."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; general principle; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; purport; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1354
77th Session, 1994
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant is challenging CERN's assignment of him on a career path in keeping with a new advancement scheme. He says the procedure should have been adversarial. The plea fails. "There is no question of any breach of his right to due process." Even discounting his discussions about CERN's provisional determination of his career path, both his internal appeal and the present proceedings "have afforded him ample opportunity to plead his case".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; assignment; complaint; due process; internal appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1346
77th Session, 1994
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Before suspending an official "there is no question [...] of letting the official have all the written evidence on which the charges against him are to rest. All that need be said here is that the complainant was given clear and accurate information about the disciplinary action his behaviour was deemed to warrant. The conclusion is that there was no breach of due process."
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; lack of injury; organisation's interest; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1344
77th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant learned that reports bearing his signature had been changed without his knowledge. The EPO gives "pressure of time" as a reason for not consulting him. "Whatever the truth of the matter may be, even if the EPO was short of time it was not justified in changing his reports, in not even discussing the changes with him afterwards nor giving him an opportunity to comment on any amendments, and in publishing them under his name."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; injury; organisation's duties; report; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1317
76th Session, 1994
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
Several recent rulings [...] sharply define the ambit of such review in line with the case law affirmed from the outset: see Judgments 956 [...] under 2 and 3; 1262 [...] under 4; and 1273 [...] under 8.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 956, 1262, 1273
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; contract; decision; discretion; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's interest; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 1289
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has said before, many decisions by international organisations that prompt complaints are unsubstantiated. Yet the staff member is still able to defend his rights. Though not stated in the actual text, the reasons for the decision may be discerned from earlier correspondence between the parties or in the last resort from the organization's brief in reply to the complaint, which the staff member may comment on in his rejoinder. Unless there is express derogation the rule is that the organization need not, if that is not its practice, state the reasons for all its decisions: what matters is that the absence of a statement should not be to the staff member's detriment."
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; duty to substantiate decision; injury; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; practice; rejoinder; reply; right to reply;
Judgment 1251
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was accused of misappropriating funds and summarily dismissed for misconduct. He says there was no fair and proper investigation of the charges against him. The Tribunal observes that the investigators failed to reach the complainant and "the organization made no effort to give him an opportunity of controverting or explaining the several matters which resulted in his dismissal. [...] Up to the time that the Joint Disciplinary Committee was appointed [...] he had no opportunity of explaining his position."
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 1234
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant, an official at grade D.2, was moved twice in 18 months but given no explanation for the transfers. His second move was to a post at a lower grade, at some distance from headquarters and in a field he had never worked in. The organization pleads that his transfer was "in the interests of the organization" and that the burden is on him to show that it was not. "But there it betrays a deeply mistaken view of its duty. Of course its own interests are paramount, but it must still, for the sake of proper management and mutual confidence, treat its staff fairly. If it is transferring a staff member it must let him have a degree of responsibility corresponding to his grade and respect his dignity. It must give him a statement of the reasons for the transfer and the opportunity of responding."
Keywords:
burden of proof; downgrading; duty to substantiate decision; grade; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; respect for dignity; right to reply; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 1233
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"At the time of her dismissal for reasons of health under Staff Regulation 9.1 she was no longer able to carry out her duties and therefore met the conditions in that Regulation. The organization [...] afforded her all the safeguards international civil servants are entitled to. So there was no abuse of authority."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF REGULATION 9.1
Keywords:
abuse of power; decision; health reasons; incapacity; medical fitness; misuse of authority; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 1228
74th Session, 1993
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's case was the subject of disciplinary proceedings. The resulting report, which contained certain adverse comments on him along with a recommendation from the Disciplinary Committee, was referred to the Joint Appeals Committee but not shown to the complainant. "The report having been put to the Appeals Committee, it had the duty to communicate its contents to the complainant and so to afford him the opportunity of challenging it or commenting on it. The Appeals Committee's failure to observe that elementary rule of due process is an essential procedural flaw and constitutes a breach of the complainant's right of defence."
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 33 to 36
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, is challenging the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post on the grounds that the decision was not substantiated. "Mutual trust between organisation and staff requires that in such circumstances the applicants should be properly informed of the decision and of the reasons for it. of course the content of the obligation [...] will depend on the sort of decision that has been taken. [...] The principle holds good: the organisation has a duty to state the reasons for the decision, that being an essential condition for proper defence of the official's rights. The staff member is therefore entitled to be given any information necessary for that purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
competition; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; promotion; purport; purpose; refusal; right to reply;
Judgment 1221
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of her summary dismissal for serious misconduct. Under the circumstances UNESCO Staff Regulation 10.2 lays no duty on the Director-General to put the matter to the Joint Disciplinary Committee. But that does not mean that the staff must "forfeit all the safeguards of the international civil service when they are to incur disciplinary sanctions. One such safeguard is their right to plead their case. The authority competent to impose the sanction has a duty to warn the staff member in clear terms of the intention of doing so and invite an answer whatever charges may lie."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF REGULATION 10.2
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; international civil service principles; organisation's duties; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal;
Judgment 1212
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-4
Extract:
The complainant disputes the lawfulness of a decision to dismiss her while she was on probation. She alleges breach of her right to a hearing before dismissal. She relies on a rule for which there was a long line of precedents, among them Judgments 987 [...] and 1082 [...]. The rule is that a contract of employment creates a relationship of trust and that lays on the organization a duty to inform the staff member of its intention of dismissing him and let him defend his interests. The organization moreover must disclose its intention before it gives notice; disclosing it just before the dismissal takes effect will not do. The Tribunal holds that CERN "utterly disregarded her right to be given a prior hearing so that she might comment in detail on the reasons why she was being dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 987, 1082
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; due process; organisation's duties; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 1188
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
After the Director-General imposed a disciplinary sanction on the complainant he lodged an internal appeal. Rule 110.4.3 of the Staff Rules says that "the deliberations and reports of the Disciplinary Committee and its recommendations to the Director- General shall be confidential". The material issue is "whether the full text of the Disciplinary Committee's report, and not just the text of its recommendation, was disclosed to the Joint Appeals Committee. If it was, the Union should have let the complainant too have a copy and, failing that, there was a procedural flaw in that there was breach of his right of defence."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 110.4.3
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; interlocutory order; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; report; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1179
73rd Session, 1992
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant wishes to have three allegedly damaging memoranda removed from his personal file. "There is no reason to have them struck from his [...] file. First, they merely bear witness to his attitude at a particular time, and he had an opportunity of discussing them with the authors and to question what they said: there was therefore no breach of his right to a hearing. Secondly, and above all, they afforded the basis for the reservation about his conduct in his periodical report and were essential to an understanding of the context in which the report was written."
Keywords:
conduct; performance report; personal file; right to reply;
Judgment 1176
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal will discount "a new material fact" which the organisation supplied "too late for the complainant to be able to comment".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; right to reply; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
