ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 104th Session

Judgment No. 2700


1. The Tribunal orders the filing of further submissions on the conditions set forth in consideration 7.
2. The Organization shall pay the complainant 3,000 United States dollars in compensation for the injury suffered.
3. It shall also pay him 3,000 dollars in costs.

Consideration 5


"The Tribunal [...] draws attention to the fact that, irrespective of the circumstances, an official is always entitled to have his case judged in proper, transparent and fair proceedings which comply with the general principles of law."


procedure before the tribunal; formal requirements; judgment of the tribunal; general principle; due process; equity; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; right; official

Consideration 6


"As the Tribunal has consistently held, the 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. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)).
As the Organization points out, there may indeed be some special cases in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. But such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers (see Judgment 1756, under 10)."


ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2229


decision; grounds; exception; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; case law; general principle; organisation's duties; duty to inform; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal

Consideration 7


The complainant did not receive the Reports Board's recommendation, which constituted the basis of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The Tribunal considers that in the present case the complainant is entitled to see the Reports Board's recommendation, an essential document on which the Administration based its decision not to renew his contract. By withholding that document the Organization deprived the complainant of an item of evidence that was essential for the preparation of his defence and the Tribunal of a document enabling it to exercise its power of review.
Accordingly there are grounds for ordering further submissions in order that the file may be supplemented with a copy of the Reports Board's recommendation, as requested by the complainant."


claim; complainant; advisory body; recommendation; interlocutory order; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; organisation's duties; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; judicial review; refusal; right

Last updated: 20.08.2020 ^ top