Judgment 1564
82nd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The firm case law has it that the Tribunal will not interfere with the comparison of entrants in a competition. Only when it appears that the choice of candidate may rest on some mistake of fact or law or there may have been misuse of authority will the Tribunal order the production of evidence so that it may review such comparison and will the complainant be entitled to see such evidence. In the instant case the review of the selection procedure reveals neither a breach of the Organization's Staff Regulations or other rules, nor any mistake of fact or law, nor misuse of authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; candidate; case law; competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1513
81st Session, 1996
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As a general rule a complainant may not be entitled to consult any records that may have been made of discussions by a selection committee: members of such committees would not feel free to discuss candidates independently in future if they felt at risk of having there own views divulged: see Judgment 556."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556
Keywords:
case law; competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; report; request by a party; selection board;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The privilege that protects the Selection Committee's actual deliberations "must cover also interviews held in preparation for its meeting."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556
Keywords:
competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; report; selection board;
Judgment 1434
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization denied the Appeals Board access to information and documents that were given to the Selection Board. The Tribunal holds that the complainant "was denied due process in the internal appeal proceedings, and for that he was entitled to redress. the organization did not offer him any. The Tribunal will therefore award him 3,000 United States dollars in moral damages".
Keywords:
compensation; confidential evidence; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; procedural flaw; selection board;
Judgment 1372
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal held in Judgments 1177 [...], under 5, and 1323 [...], under 9, an item that forms part of the proceedings that led to the impugned decision may not be withheld from scrutiny by the Tribunal. That holds good for any appellate body. So the administration ought to have disclosed to the Regional Board the documents it required to enable it to take up the complainant's appeal properly."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1177, 1323
Keywords:
case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1323
76th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The WHO appointed an external candidate to a position which the complainant had applied for. On the grounds of privilege the organization offered no evidence to the Board or the Tribunal of the external candidate's qualifications. "The Tribunal does not accept that the disclosure of a candidate's identity and qualifications may [...] inhibit the free expression of views by members of selection committees or prejudice the interests of other candidates. [...] The external candidate's qualifications were of essential importance to the Selection Committee in making its choice and to any appeal against the appointment made." No such documents may be withheld from the Tribunal.
Keywords:
candidate; confidential evidence; evidence; internal appeals body; internal candidate; open competition; selection board; submissions;
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 1177
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The defendant organisation has refused to produce certain documents pleading privilege. "An item that forms part of the decision may not be withheld from the Tribunal's scrutiny. [...] There shall therefore be further submissions to complete the case records, the Union being required to supply the [material documents]."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; refusal;
Judgment 1116
71st Session, 1991
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant submits that the decision not to renew his appointment was tainted with breach of his right of defence since he failed to get a copy of a report concerning him by the Joint Disciplinary Committee. The Tribunal observes that such reports are confidential under Rule 110.2(e). "Besides, the report is immaterial, even in the present context, because the Committee recommended no disciplinary action and the stated reasons for termination were financial stringency and abolition of post."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 110.2(E)
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; budgetary reasons; confidential evidence; contract; disclosure of evidence; fixed-term; lack of injury; non-renewal of contract; report; right to reply;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organization objects to [the] production [of certain items of evidence] on the grounds of privilege but not to the Tribunal's seeing the documents and ruling on the plea of privilege. The complainant being in agreement with that course of action, the Tribunal has ordered the Organization to disclose to it the notes and correspondence. Having read the documents disclosed, the Tribunal upholds the plea of privilege."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; request by a party; tribunal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The reason why the complainant was given an unsatisfactory rating for conduct was that, as he does not deny, he had disclosed his superior's 'day'. That was a clear breach of Regulation 1.7", which bars officials from communicating information known to them by reason of their official position which has not been made public.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF REGULATION 1.7
Keywords:
communication to third party; conduct; confidential evidence; duty of discretion; staff member's duties;
Judgment 958
66th Session, 1989
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The organization asks the Tribunal to strike out an item of evidence presented by the complainant. "In view of the other evidence before it the Tribunal will discount the challenged item. Since it thereby in substance grants the organisation satisfaction without detriment to the complainant's rights, it need not rule on the application. There is enough evidence before it anyway to allow of a ruling on the merits."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 614
53rd Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant claims to have received unequal treatment. He invites the Tribunal to order disclosure of another staff member's personnel file for comparison with his own, along with the file on the grading of his post. "The ILO objects to disclosing another official's records to the complainant but is willing to let the Tribunal see them."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 565
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; equal treatment; personal file; post classification; request by a party;
Judgment 595
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
During the proceedings, the organization invited the Tribunal to lift the obligation of professional secrecy to allow the Tribunal access to the complainant's medical file. The complainant declined to allow this and by order of the Tribunal, the application was rejected on the grounds that only a patient might release his physician from professional secrecy. After the exchange of briefs, the complainant expressed agreement with his medical file being made available to the Tribunal. The Tribunal disallowed the reopening of proceedings for the file to be submitted. The complainant's own attitude is responsible for no evidence of the temporary nature of his illness having been presented.
Keywords:
complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; medical records; organisation; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 558
50th Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The organisation is opposed to the disclosure of the report [on which the impugned decision is based] on the grounds that the report is an internal document not included in the items which the service regulations require to be put in a staff member's personal file. "There are two reasons why the complainant's application should succeed. First, it concerns a report which deals with the point in dispute and which has a bearing on the Tribunal's decision. Secondly, the impugned decision does not give the reasons set out in the report, even though it does not describe the report as confidential."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; order; report; request by a party;
Judgment 557
50th Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3(C) and 4(C)
Extract:
The complainant is seeking the disclosure of all confidential minutes exchanged between the units of the administration. The organisation "maintains that there are no secret minutes besides those which have been filed in the dossier. The Tribunal accepts this, and [the relevant claim] therefore fails."
Keywords:
cause of action; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; no cause of action; order; request by a party;
Considerations 3(B) and 4(B)
Extract:
"The complainant must be satisfied with the conclusions of the [...] Board as set out [in] the performance appraisal form. He has no right of access to texts produced for or by the Board." As stated in the material rule, "'the proceedings of the Board shall be regarded as secret'. If that were not so the Board could not act in full independence."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; performance report; request by a party;
Considerations 3(E) and 4(E)
Extract:
The complainant is seeking the disclosure of the appraisals of his colleagues. According to the Staff Regulations, "personal files shall be confidential. This provision is in the legitimate interests of staff members and its validity is beyond dispute. The complainant may not obtain the disclosure of the appraisal reports on his colleagues, which form part of their personal files."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; personal file; request by a party;
Judgment 556
50th Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant is not entitled to consult any record of discussion by the Selection Board. "Members of selection boards would not feel free to discuss candidates independently in future if they were at risk of having their personal views divulged."
Keywords:
competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; order; report; request by a party; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 476
47th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 448
46th Session, 1981
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The complainant appends to her complaint excerpts from tape recordings of evidence given to the Board of [...] Appeal. The [Organization] invites the Tribunal to disregard the excerpts on the grounds that they are incomplete or else to ask the Board to produce the complete recordings. The Tribunal has no reason to disregard the excerpts. The [Organization] does not deny their accuracy and was free [...] to supplement them itself [it] may not properly object to the Tribunal's passing judgment on findings of the internal appeals body."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; recording;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal dismisses the complainant's application for the removal of documents. "Any prejudice which may have been caused by such documents may be treated as made good by the present judgment."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 440
45th Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"In accordance with a general principle, the findings in reports of this nature should not be disclosed and, unless they are necessary to judicial redress, the Tribunal abstains from ordering the production of them." At issue is the report of an internal inquiry into staff-management relations in connection with the termination of a probationer's contract.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 431
45th Session, 1980
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
The complainant requests the disclosure of documents, copies of which he appends to his rejoinder; the organisation accuses him of procuring the copies in breach of the rules and common practice and asks that the copies be expunged. Two of the documents relate to questions of law which the Tribunal will settle proprio motu and questions of fact which the Tribunal will settle on the strength of other evidence. In the light of the written evidence and what was said at the hearings, the Tribunal will not take account of the three documents.
Keywords:
complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; request by a party;
Judgment 429
45th Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The statutory provisions which prohibit the disclosure of evidence are not binding on the Tribunal, which is competent to decide on what evidence is admissible. The Tribunal "will decide the matter as it deems fit, with due regard to the interests of both parties - the complainant's interest in having written evidence to support his case and the interest of the organisation or of third parties in preserving the privileged nature of such evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; competence of tribunal; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Statutory provisions prohibit officials from disclosing information not already made public or from disclosing, without permission from the Director-General, in any legal proceedings information of which they have knowledge by reason of their duties. Such permission will be refused only when the interests of the organisation so require. On the strength of these provisions the organisation requests the withdrawal of certain items. "The provisions cited [...] govern the relationship between the [organisation] and its staff [...]. They are not binding on the Tribunal since no Staff Regulations may limit the Tribunal's competence to determine whether written evidence is admissible."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; competence of tribunal; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty of discretion;
