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

Report (91,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Report
Total judgments found: 70

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 4120


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to communicate to him an investigation report concerning the payment of school fees to another employee.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    education expenses; report; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4111


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded. This plea is well founded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4109


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 3995


    126th Session, 2018
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Such laconic reasoning which, in the absence of any specific reference to legal or factual considerations, prevents the complainant from ascertaining whether each of the pleas presented in support of his appeal was duly examined by the Board, or from challenging the merits of that body’s recommendation, plainly does not satisfy the minimum standards required in order to ensure that the complainant’s right to a fair appeal procedure is respected (see, for a comparable case, Judgment 1317, under 33).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; motivation; report;



  • Judgment 3934


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490

    Keywords:

    final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;



  • Judgment 3912


    125th Session, 2018
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is [...] for the Director-General to issue the final decision accepting or rejecting the JAB’s recommendation(s). The Director-General’s cover email of 3 May 2016 under which the JAB’s report was communicated to the complainant was the final decision which the complainant should have impugned. However, although the complainant purports to challenge the JAB’s report, the complaint is receivable as the Tribunal treats it as impugning the final decision of 3 May 2016 (see, for example, Judgment 3887, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887

    Keywords:

    final decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; report;



  • Judgment 3908


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes, at the outset, that the Appeals Board’s report is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational and the recommendations made respectfully. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; report;



  • Judgment 3608


    121st Session, 2016
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the final administrative decision of the Director General by which he dismissed her internal appeal against the decision not to pay her moral damages for harassment and for injury to her dignity and reputation.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The report of the JAB manifests a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration and evaluation of the evidence and whether any of the conduct about which the complainant is aggrieved can be characterised as harassment, a breach of the IAEA’s duty of care or as otherwise unlawful. It is now settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal that in some circumstances reports of internal appeal bodies warrant “considerable deference” (see, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; report;



  • Judgment 3512


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a warning letter from his reporting officer, warning him that he was at risk of receiving markings of less than "good" in his forthcoming staff report.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; report;



  • Judgment 3511


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the third version of his staff report for 2002-2003.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; report;



  • Judgment 3489


    120th Session, 2015
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision that his 2010 Performance Review Report shall be redone from the beginning and that a decision regarding an amendment to his contract extension from three to five years will be contingent on the outcome of the new Report.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    contract; extension; performance evaluation; report;



  • Judgment 3487


    120th Session, 2015
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to allow a “Note for the File” to remain on his personal file.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; personal file; report;



  • Judgment 3447


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In its detailed report, the JAAB clearly referred to the complainant’s numerous submissions and allegations and demonstrated in its findings and conclusions that it had indeed understood and considered all the evidence before it, but that it simply found no flaw in the investigation procedure nor in the conclusion that no harassment had occurred. The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence to show that the JAAB’s findings, or the procedure, suffered any material flaw. “Consistent case law holds that ‘harassment and mobbing do not require malice or intent, but that behaviour cannot be considered as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for it’ […]. The complainant did not show that the [JAAB’s] finding and conclusions involved any reviewable error. The situations and events that she cites as examples of mobbing and harassment cannot be considered as such because there is a reasonable explanation for each example.” (See Judgment 3192, under 15.) It is clear from the submissions of both parties, that the situations which the complainant perceived as harassment were quite reasonably explained by the managerial necessities of the Organization. Essentially, the conflict that resulted in the allegations of harassment lay in the poor working relationships that existed between the complainant and other members of the ILO/AIDS team."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3192

    Keywords:

    harassment; internal appeals body; report;



  • 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 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 3290


    116th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2315, under 29, the Tribunal held that the need for a personnel advisory panel to be free to discuss relevant matters is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality “[i]n a decisionmaking process which is subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal […]”. This is equally applicable to a reassignment process that is also subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If there are aspects of the report pertaining to confidential third party information, the report can be redacted to exclude this information."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315

    Keywords:

    advisory body; competence of tribunal; decision-maker; judicial review; reassignment; report;



  • 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 3064


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

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[I]n its report [...], the Joint Advisory Appeals Board "encourage[d] [the Human Resources Development Department] and the responsible chiefs of the complainant and of her head of section to pursue and step up their efforts to promote better communication and working relations" within the [complainant's unit] and [...] the letter of 18 March 2008 indicated that the Director-General had "endorse[d] this recommendation". The Administration was therefore under an obligation to pursue and step up the efforts in question. However, the evidence on file does not show that the Administration used all the means at the disposal of an organisation such as the ILO to achieve the desired result. The fact that the complainant chose to lodge an appeal in order to seek recognition of her rights did not exempt the Organization from its obligations towards one of its officials to whom it owed a duty of care and who has not been found to have committed any fault."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; complaint allowed; consequence; duty of care; executive head; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; report; right; right of appeal; working relations;

    Considerations 10 & 11

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
    "The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; complaint allowed; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;



  • 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;



  • Judgment 2744


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In the present case, over three years have elapsed between the filing of the complainant's appeal and the issuing of the Internal Appeals Committee's opinion. Moreover, two and a half years have elapsed between the filing of the appeal and the submission of the EPO's position paper before the Committee, which constitutes an excessive delay in the proceedings. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to 1,000 euros in moral damages."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral damages; moral injury; period; procedure; publication; report; right;



  • Judgment 2599


    102nd Session, 2007
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal notes that there is no evidence to prove that the complainant was given any kind of access to the report on which the Director General is said to have based her decision to dismiss her.
    It may be concluded from the above and from the evidence in the file that the impugned decision was taken in breach of the safeguards regarding the provision of proper conditions for probation, resulting from the rules and regulations, from general principles of law and from the Tribunal's case law, and, in particular, in breach of the complainant's right to be heard.
    The impugned decision must therefore be quashed."

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; duty to inform; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties; probation; report; right to reply; safeguard; termination;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top