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 229
32nd Session, 1974
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(c)
Extract:
The complainant had in fact exercised her right to a hearing when she sent the Director-General a letter which included an account of her position. "She has no grounds for complaining that the Director-General did not interview her personally since the right to a hearing does not imply any right to plead one's case orally before the Director-General."
Keywords:
consequence; contract; fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
Judgment 203
30th Session, 1973
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant "was not [...] allowed to be present during the hearing of witnesses or to participate in the examination of the evidence. Although the statements made by the witnesses were communicated to him he was not in a position, during the hearing, to rebut the charges against him, to put questions, or to ask for clarification." The right to be heard was not respected. The decision to terminate the complainant for serious misconduct is tainted by a procedural irregularity.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; flaw; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 200
30th Session, 1973
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[I]t appears from the minutes of the Advisory Board's meeting that, contrary to what the complainant alleges, he was given a hearing by the Board, and that in any case he was able to submit full written and oral observations to the Appeals Board, whose recommendation the Director-General accepted."
Keywords:
advisory body; increment withheld; internal appeals body; judicial review; right to reply; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 197
29th Session, 1972
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[I]t is within the Director-General's discretion on receiving an appeal [...] to decide whether, in order to establish the facts, it is necessary to give a personal hearing to the person concerned or whether the arguments and documents supplied by him and the information given by the chief of his unit are sufficient to allow a decision to be taken."
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period; right to reply; work appraisal;
Judgment 162
24th Session, 1970
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The procedure laid down for the purpose of enabling an official to defend himself against the charges against him [written notification of charges, time limit for reply] is inappropriate once the person concerned has admitted those charges. The safeguard provided by [the rule] has become pointless in the present case, since the complainant has admitted his misconduct in statements which the Tribunal has found to be true."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; misconduct; purpose; right to reply; safeguard; termination of employment;
Judgment 161
24th Session, 1970
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 162, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 162
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; purpose; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 160
24th Session, 1970
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 162, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 162
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; purpose; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 159
24th Session, 1970
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 162, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 162
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; purpose; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 152
23rd Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration on Termination
Extract:
The complainant "was not informed of the Organization's intention to terminate his service nor invited to state his views. It is clear, however, that before the Appeals Committee the complainant was duly informed of the reasons for his termination and that he had an opportunity to discuss them. Accordingly, in the special circumstances of the case, he could not validly allege any violation of the right to a hearing."
Keywords:
grounds; probationary period; right to reply; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 133
21st Session, 1969
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant objects to the organization's failure to disclose certain documents until after the internal appeals procedure was under way. "It has not been established that either of these documents in any way influenced the decision to terminate the complainant's appointment. The alleged delay in producing them did not therefore constitute a violation of his right to be heard."
Keywords:
administrative delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; lack of injury; organisation; right to reply;
Judgment 132
21st Session, 1969
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"Whereas the complainant had to be informed beforehand that his transfer was contemplated, since this was a measure affecting him personally and entailing a major change of residence [...] all the circumstances on which the competent authority based its decision were [...] known to the complainant [...] he had commented on them at length [...] his chief had [...] warned him [...] that [...] the existing situation could not but seriously impair the satisfactory operation of the [service]."
Keywords:
duty to inform; grounds; notice; organisation's interest; right to reply; transfer;
Judgment 125
20th Session, 1968
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The organization based its conclusions on letters and the contents thereof "as evidence against the complainant". The complainant is accordingly "entitled to see the letters; and it is not enough that he should be provided with extracts or summaries of such parts of the letters as the organization considers to be relevant." The organization has admitted that passages have been omitted relating to extraneous subjects or which the organization considers confidential, the reasons for any such omissions having been given. If the Tribunal decides to examine the omitted passages, "the complete letters will [...] be produced only to the Tribunal itself and will not be shown to the complainant" unless the Tribunal so decides.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; organisation; right to reply;
Judgment 111
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Director General wrote to the complainant inviting him to give an explanation of behaviour which in his view could lead to a reprimand. The complainant submitted his explanations and the proposed sanction was applied. The complainant's contentions that "the aforesaid decision was taken in violation of his right to be heard and that the reasons for it were insufficient are therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; reprimand; right to reply;
Judgment 109
17th Session, 1967
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The decision impugned was taken on the basis, in particular, of the reports of her two [...] chiefs; these reports deal with specific points which are not invalidated by any of the evidence in the dossier. From these facts as a whole the [...] Director [...] could conclude that complainant's service was unsatisfactory, without exceeding his discretion. However, his decision was taken only after he had personally heard [the complainant], who was given the opportunity of fully defending her views."
Keywords:
discretion; probation report; probationary period; right to reply; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 92
16th Session, 1966
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In transmitting to the complainant only the recommendations of the report, without the reasons stated therein, the organization ignored the official's right to be heard."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; organisation; refusal; report; right to reply;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Applicable even when not laid out in a specific text, the right to be heard "implies that every official shall have the opportunity of consulting the documents needed to defend his legitimate interests."
Keywords:
consequence; disclosure of evidence; general principle; no provision; right to reply;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organization transmitted to the complainant the findings of the internal appeals body, to the exclusion of its reasons. "As a result of the production of the full report during the present proceedings the complainant has been able to rely on it to submit any arguments which she considered suitable to support her claim. It follows that, while the right to be heard was ignored, at the administrative proceedings stage, this did not in fact affect the sense of the decision complained of and [...] does not involve the quashing of that decision."
Keywords:
case pending; disclosure of evidence; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; lack of injury; organisation; procedural flaw; report; right to reply; tribunal;
Judgment 89
15th Session, 1965
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The charges against the complainant warranted the Director-General's decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In offering him the choice between resignation and appearing before the Joint Committee, the Director-General acted freely and out of good-will. "It was open to the complainant, if he so desired, to defend himself against the charges preferred against him. The choice that lay before him was therefore entirely free."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; executive head; lack of consent; misconduct; proposal; resignation; right to reply; subsidiary;
Judgment 88
15th Session, 1965
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary of facts
Extract:
"In its Judgment [No. 69] quashing the decision not to confirm the appointment of the complainant at the end of the probationary period on the grounds of failure to comply with the recognised procedure and infringement of the right to be heard, the Tribunal invited the organization to reopen the case, to enable the complainant to exercise his rights, and to consider whether he should be reinstated. At the same time it reserved the complainant's right to claim compensation whether or not he was reinstated." The complainant was not reinstated and he requests the Tribunal to fix compensation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 69
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; material damages; probationary period; procedural flaw; refusal; reinstatement; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 69
12th Session, 1964
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Far from having been able normally to defend his interests before the Director-General, the complainant [...] was not invited to comment on the documents which were submitted without his knowledge. [...] Even if the appeals procedure was properly complied with, the previous infringement of the right to be heard was not thereby corrected, since the officer who took the first decision had based himself to a considerable extent on evaluations which the higher authority apparently accepted without checking them all personally."
Keywords:
internal appeal; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The right to be heard was doubly ignored. The Regional Director terminated the appointment of the complainant without submitting to him a period evaluation report or affording him the opportunity of justifying himself. In the appeals proceedings, reports were produced the existence of which the complainant only became aware during the proceedings before the Tribunal and with regard to which he accordingly had not opportunity to state his case in time. The decision to terminate the appointment is quashed.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; flaw; probation report; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Infringement of the right to be heard being sufficient to entail the quashing of the decision complained of, the Tribunal does not have to consider whether any other reason would also have justified this conclusion."
Keywords:
flaw; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"By virtue of this right, before a decision to his detriment is taken, every official should have the opportunity of acquainting himself with the elements taken as the basis for this decision and of explaining himself with regard to them. It follows, in particular, that he cannot be the subject of a termination decision as long as he has not received the evaluation reports concerning him and has not been allowed the opportunity to dispute their contents. The principle stated, which applies even in the absence of express texts, is, moreover, embodied in the provisions of [the Staff Rules]."
Keywords:
consequence; flaw; performance report; probation report; probationary period; right to reply; termination of employment; work appraisal;
Judgment 32
7th Session, 1958
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The irregularities indicated "resulted in depriving complainant of the opportunity of effectively discussing the appreciations made by his superiors, a fact aggravated by reason of the irregularities by which the procedure of the [Advisory] Committee was tainted, resulting in complainant being unable to avail himself of a procedure under which he might have been able to emphasise the qualities he claimed with a view to possibly obtaining an indeterminate appointment [...]. In this manner, the complainant was deprived of the possibility of having the decision taken modified, a possibility available to him under the Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; contract; due process; fixed-term; flaw; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment; procedural flaw; refusal; right to reply; work appraisal;
Judgment 13
4th Session, 1954
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
On the substance
Extract:
The existence of a secret document vitiates the equitable application of the Regulations and affects both the interests of the staff as a whole and that of justice itself. "Vide, Judgment No. 15 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal: 'the applicant cannot be penalised because certain information is considered by the respondent as confidential and the applicant has no opportunity either of knowing that the reason is or of challenging it."
Keywords:
case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; refusal; right to reply; unat;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
