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 611
53rd Session, 1984
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
There is no need to determine whether the refusal to allow the complainant to file a second rejoinder during the internal proceedings violated his right to a fair hearing. "Any defect there was must be deemed to have been removed by the present proceedings before the Tribunal. [...] Since the complainant is free to comment on any such issue before the Tribunal he has had sufficient opportunity to put his case properly, even if the Appeals Board did not fully respect his rights as a party."
Keywords:
flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; lack of injury; procedural flaw; right to reply; tribunal;
Judgment 600
52nd Session, 1984
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The question is [...] whether [the complainant] continues to be worth his place in the organisation. If he does, it is prima facie in the interests of the organisation to retain his services; if he does not, it is the Director-General's duty to allow the appointment to terminate. The Director-General must reach an informed and unprejudiced conclusion, but that is all that is required of him."
Keywords:
contract; discretion; fixed-term; limits; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; right to reply;
Judgment 585
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"What the right [to a hearing] requires is that the parties should have a chance to state their views before any decision is taken to their detriment. It does not mean that they must be allowed to comment at every stage in the procedure. In particular they have no right to be consulted by a branch whose opinion is sought by the decision-maker, and [the directorate] was not required to give the complainant a hearing when it was consulted for the second time about her grading."
Keywords:
condition; post classification; right to reply;
Judgment 542
49th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The penalty imposed was justified, but the complainant's appointment was terminated "without warning of the action that might be taken against him, although it [was] never said that the matter was urgent. The general principle of lawis that an administration may not impose a penalty on anyone before giving him an opportunity to comment on the charges against him".
Keywords:
contract; flaw; general principle; misrepresentation; offer withdrawn; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 512
49th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The staff member concerned must have had a chance to put forward his objections in disciplinary proceedings. "The complainant had every opportunity to state her case in the disciplinary proceedings, and there is therefore no reason why the insubordination of which she was found guilty should not be treated as affording grounds for reporting her service as unsatisfactory and with holding her increment."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; right to reply;
Judgment 511
49th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
There is no substance to the complainant's plea that her right to a hearing was ignored. Her right to reply in writing was recognised and confirmed on two occasions. The time limit, though short, was adequate: the complainant did not need a long time to answer the charges, which were nothing new. She could have had the time limit extended. "It is immaterial that she was asked to reply in writing and not orally. Unless there is a provision to the contrary, the right to a hearing does not denote any right to reply orally."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; oral proceedings; right to reply;
Judgment 483
48th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The internal appeals body did not respect the complainant's right to a hearing. In this case "not only has the complainant had every opportunity to state her case in these proceedings but the Tribunal will decide proprio motu the points on which the Appeals Committee heard evidence from the officials [without the parties' knowledge]. The flaw in the appeal proceedings is therefore of no consequence and is to be regarded as corrected by the present proceedings.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; lack of injury; procedural flaw; right to reply; tribunal;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"A judicial body is bound to respect the right to a hearing, and it is a breach of that right to take evidence without the parties' knowledge."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; right to reply;
Judgment 476
47th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right to a hearing includes the opportunity to take part in the deposition of evidence. "The Appeals Committee ought to have summoned the complainant and a representative of the organization to attend when the expert witness gave evidence. [...] This flaw in the internal appeal proceeding had no effect, however." The expert witness expressed views solely on the nature of the complainant's former and new posts. This is a point which has been fully elucidated in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Neither the statements of the expert witness nor the conclusions of the Committee can therefore have any effect on the Tribunal's decision.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; lack of injury; procedural flaw; right to reply; tribunal;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The right to a hearing means that "any official in dispute with the organization should [...] be allowed access to evidence which may serve in defending their interests and are not confidential." In this case "the complainant has not established or even suggested it likely that the files he wished to have disclosed would have supported his claims."
Keywords:
complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 440
45th Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complaint objects to the fact that he was not asked to comment on the appraisal report before being told of the decision to terminate his appointment. The irregularity is admitted by the organisation but was corrected in his appeal to the Director-General, which gave him every opportunity to make whatever comments he wished. The argument would succeed only if the Director-General's competence had been more limited than that of the author of the report. However, like the latter, the Director-General made an unfettered assessment of all factual and legal aspects of the case.
Keywords:
internal appeal; probation report; right to reply;
Judgment 428
45th Session, 1980
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Although the complainant was not invited to address the [Review Committee on classifications], his application for review of his classification was put to it. It is therefore not open to him to allege any breach of his right to a hearing, since the right does not mean that he is entitled to be heard in person."
Keywords:
consequence; internal appeals body; post classification; right to reply;
Judgment 410
44th Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was issued a reprimand without it being ascertained what explanation or excuse he might have to give. It is not possible to ignore the alleged misconduct of the Regional Director. "The Director-General must be allowed the widest possible discretion in deciding how to handle incidents of this sort. If he had decided against any formal disciplinary proceedings against either of the parties, his decision would have beyond criticism. But a decision to reprimand one party while leaving the case against the other unconsidered is open to question."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; censure; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 404
43rd Session, 1980
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Director-General stated that he would inquire into the truth of the alleged assurances given to the complainant. "That was a conciliatory gesture, and it meant neither the continuation of her earlier appeal nor the introduction of a new one. [...] Since the action he intended was informal, [the Director-General] was under no duty to give the complainant an opportunity to comment on the outcome. That she was not allowed to give evidence in the course of the inquiry therefore constituted no breach of the right to a hearing."
Keywords:
contract; executive head; inquiry; investigation; promise; right to reply;
Judgment 397
43rd Session, 1980
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"One purpose of giving reasons for a decision is to enable the staff member to defend his rights before an appeals body."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; grounds; purpose; right to reply;
Judgment 303
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainants contend that they were not informed of the criteria and recommendations for promotions drawn up by the Careers Committee. The requested documents have been circulated to the staff and this grievance therefore fails. "The texts were notified after the original memoranda, but before the rejoinders had been lodged: [...] the complainants were able to refer to those texts in the course of the proceedings and so their right to a hearing has not been infringed."
Keywords:
case pending; criteria; disclosure of evidence; no cause of action; promotion board; right to reply;
Judgment 301
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 303, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 303
Keywords:
case pending; criteria; disclosure of evidence; no cause of action; promotion board; right to reply;
Judgment 284
37th Session, 1976
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[T]he officer-in-charge [...] and [...] the Director-General had before them all the relevant documents which the complainant also had seen and they had also the complainant's written replies. The question which they had to consider was not whether the complainant's evaluation of his services was to be preferred to that of his division director, but whether the latter was unjustified. On such a question a staff member cannot claim a right to an oral hearing; this must be within the discretion of the authority concerned and normally it would not be necessary."
Keywords:
discretion; right to reply; work appraisal;
Judgment 283
37th Session, 1976
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
No provision requires "that a staff member be informed of the recommendations made by the competent advisory board with regard to his claim. Those recommendations are intended solely to assist the decision-making authority. The contentious nature of the administrative proceedings is respected by notification to the staff member of the decisions taken by the administration in the light of the board's report and by allowing him to reply to those decisions and that report after studying the whole of his file."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; advisory opinion; disclosure of evidence; organisation's duties; request by a party; right to reply;
Considerations
Extract:
"[A]ll the material documents and decisions were notified to the complainant. He was also given an opportunity to make any comments he thought relevant on those documents and decisions. He cannot therefore properly maintain that his right to a hearing was denied."
Keywords:
condition; right to reply;
Judgment 254
34th Session, 1975
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant contends that his supervisor failed to discuss his conclusions with him as required by the applicable provision. "Non-compliance with these requirements does not however ipso facto invalidate a report. In the present case it is clear from the facts in the dossier that discussion would have served no useful purpose."
Keywords:
flaw; lack of injury; organisation's duties; performance report; rebuttal; right to reply;
Judgment 248
34th Session, 1975
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[A]fter her dismissal, before she appeared before the [...] Appeals Board and on appearing before the Board, [the complainant] had every opportunity to examine all the documents in her dossier and to submit her case. She thus enjoyed all the formal and procedural safeguards stipulated by the terms of her appointment and the general principles of law."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; due process; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 232
32nd Session, 1974
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[S]ince the complainant had let it be clearly understood that he would not attend the meeting and would be represented at it, the fact that he was not told of its exact date is immaterial to the propriety of the proceedings."
Keywords:
complainant; counsel; date; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
