Disclosure of evidence (151,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Disclosure of evidence
Total judgments found: 185
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 3172
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."
Keywords:
breach; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; general principle; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3151
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s request for disclosure of the minutes of the hearing held concerning his three internal appeals, the Tribunal notes that it was raised for the first time in the rejoinder of the present proceedings. It is therefore irreceivable owing to a failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 3149
113th Session, 2012
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The application for the production of documents is [...] refused. Insofar as the complainant seeks the production of specific documents, they have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Moreover, the Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that they may reveal something to assist the complainant’s case.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 3143
113th Session, 2012
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t appears that the Board failed to make available to the complainant material that it had obtained from the Administration. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...].
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process;
Judgment 3077
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant takes the Board to task for having violated the adversarial principle by not giving him access to the competition file, or by not even being prepared to discuss whether the file was so confidential that all or part of it had to be kept secret.
The Board’s procedure is governed by Annex IV to the Staff Regulations, paragraph 20 of which provides that “[a]ll proceedings of the Board are confidential” and that “[a]ny breach of confidentiality shall be considered serious misconduct”. In [...] Judgment 3032 the Tribunal held that the Board’s in camera consultation of a competition file did not constitute a procedural flaw warranting the quashing of the impugned decision. A candidate in a competition is not in fact entitled to consult the records of the Selection Board’s deliberations or to know the identity of the other candidates who have been eliminated (see Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142, under 16 and 17). In the instant case it is necessary to abide by this rule of confidentiality, the purpose of which is to protect both the general interest, thereby ensuring the Organization’s proper functioning, and the candidates’ privacy. The complainant, who was able to obtain all the relevant information from the responsible chief and to express his opinion thereon, also had an opportunity to comment as he wished on the ILO’s substantive arguments during the internal appeal procedure.
It follows that this plea must [...] be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142, 3032
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142
Keywords:
candidate; communication to third party; competition; disclosure of evidence; right; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"By [...] basing his decision on an essential document without having given the person concerned an opportunity to refute its content, the competent authority breached the right to be heard which every staff member possesses and his decision was thus tainted by a major procedural flaw (in this connection, see for example Judgments 69, under 2, and 1881, under 18 to 20)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 69, 1881
Keywords:
breach; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; official; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if he or she so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgment 2496, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"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)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2229
Keywords:
case law; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; exception; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal;
Consideration 7
Extract:
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."
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; complainant; contract; disclosure of evidence; fixed-term; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 2588
102nd Session, 2007
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Agency has produced before the Tribunal an excerpt of the minutes of the Panel’s meeting [...], as a result of which the complainant has been able to consult that document and to have at her disposal more information than the mere analysis thereof by the Joint Appeals Board. This late disclosure does not remedy the irregularity committed by the Agency, for it is well settled (see, for example, Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2315, under 27) that “[t]o ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal, the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome”. In the instant case, consulting the Joint Advisory Panel’s report, even if it was in principle confidential, was instructive for the complainant, and some of its content was liable to influence the outcome of her claims since it discloses that some members of the Panel expressed reservations, and even showed some concern about the solution finally adopted, and that they suggested that the Agency should help the staff member to find alternative employment. This procedural irregularity does not in itself call into question the lawfulness of the impugned decision, but it must be borne in mind when assessing the injury which the complainant claims to have suffered [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2315
Keywords:
damages; delay; disclosure of evidence; moral injury;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2510
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant's case."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; evidence; further submissions; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; submissions;
Judgment 2496
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; official; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;
Judgment 2494
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"It has been consistently held by the Tribunal that an employee of an international organisation has a right to be heard in disciplinary proceedings and, as said in Judgment 203, that 'right includes inter alia the opportunity to participate in the examination of the evidence'. As that judgment makes clear, that is so even 'in the absence of any explicit text'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; case law; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; no provision; official; organisation; right; right to reply;
Judgment 2254
95th Session, 2003
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"According to firm precedent, before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him. ... Failing a valid waiver on the part of the complainant of the adversarial proceedings provided for in the staff rules, the Director-General incorrectly based his decision on information that was not gathered in the context of adversarial proceedings guaranteeing the complainant's right to be heard. Since the complainant was not given the opportunity to put forward a proper defence, this fundamental flaw must cause the impugned decision to be set aside."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the opportunity for the staff member concerned to participate in the full processing of the evidence and to make all his pleas. It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged amongst the disciplinary sanctions set out in the staff regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of alleged professional shortcomings [...] which may [...] give rise to disciplinary sanctions (see Judgments 1796, 1929 under 7, 1972 under 3 and 4, and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1796, 1929, 1972
Keywords:
case law; consequence; disciplinary measure; disclosure of evidence; evidence; formal requirements; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; participation; right to reply; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2213
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In his application for review "the complainant contends that the Tribunal failed to rule on requests for the disclosure of documents by the organization [...] A plea that the Tribunal failed to rule on claims is related to a complainant's submissions on the merits; by contrast, decisions by the Tribunal on requests for the disclosure of documents concern the administration and appraisal of evidence and cannot, in principle, give rise to review."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a claim;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents.
The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition; iloat; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; official; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party; right;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
