Adversarial proceedings (183, 184,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Adversarial proceedings
Total judgments found: 86
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The first topic concerns the provision to the Appeals Committee of a memorandum setting out the reasons of the Director, CIO for not accepting the complainant’s reassignment to the position of Chief, Global Operations Branch, CIO. The FAO does not contest that the document was provided to the Committee but not the complainant but notes, as the Appeals Committee did in its report, that the document was marked “strictly confidential”. However this does not provide a basis for exceptionally not providing the complainant with a copy of a document, and potentially an important document, in adversarial proceedings such as the internal appeal where the document is relied on by the Organization (see, for example, Judgments 3688, consideration 29, 3586, consideration 16, and 3862, consideration 11). The complainant was entitled to see the evidence advanced by the FAO in the internal appeal in order to equip him to provide rebutting evidence or to otherwise question the evidence or comment on it. The complainant was denied this opportunity. He is entitled to moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 3688, 3862
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; evidence;
Judgment 3927
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was provided with summaries of the interviews of Ms E. and Ms B., as well as her own, and was given ample opportunity to comment on them, of which she availed herself. The auditors found that, in substance, the alleged statements had in fact been made by the complainant, based solely on the three witness testimonies (of Ms B., Ms E. and the complainant). The auditors were tasked only with a fact-finding investigation, so they made no qualitative judgement on the complainant’s statements in question and merely limited themselves to verifying whether or not the incident had occurred. Considering this, and the fact that the complainant had a summarized version of each of the interviews, she had all the evidence on which the authority based its decision (see Judgment 3863, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal stresses that the UPU is mistaken in relying on “confidentiality”, as stated in Staff Rule 110.4, quoted above, as a reason to deny the complainant a copy of either the investigation report or the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee. Clearly, Staff Rule 110.4(3) can only be interpreted as meaning that the deliberations are confidential and that the consequent reports are not to be published or shared unless or until the documents are relied on in adversarial proceedings, including in steps leading to the imposition of a disciplinary measure. While in the present case, the complainant had much of the information needed to defend herself (as the investigation was confined to the three witness interviews, of which she had summary copies), the only way to properly ensure that a staff member has been fully informed of all the evidence and other elements of the case against her or him, on which the authority has based or intends to base its decision, is to supply her or him with the pertinent documents. The UPU failed to do so and, in the result, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal assesses at 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3846
124th Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the working conditions to which she was subjected during a secondment and contends that the ITU breached the rules on performance appraisals.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he refusal of the Appeal Board to authorise the filing of a rejoinder by the complainant does not constitute a breach of the adversarial principle, because the [organisation]’s reply did not disclose any genuinely new facts. The Appeal Board was under no obligation to call the witnesses whom the complainant wished it to hear, since it was for that body to decide whether such a step was appropriate.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3755
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has repeatedly held that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) a decision affecting a personal interest worthy of protection. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality unless there is some special case 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 3688, under 29, and the case law cited therein).
The Tribunal has also found that the report of the body responsible for conducting a reassignment process […] is analogous not to the records of confidential discussions, but to the final report of a selection committee which may be disclosed to the staff member concerned, if necessary with redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3290, under 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3290, 3688
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; evidence; right to be heard;
Judgment 3732
123rd Session, 2017
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In consideration 19 [of Judgment 3640] the Tribunal noted the established case law “according to which ‘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’ and, ‘under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality’ (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers)”.
However, the Tribunal went on to observe in consideration 20 that: “[A]s is expressly indicated by the use of the terms ‘as a general rule’ and ‘under normal circumstances’ in the above excerpts of judgments, the case law in question does allow some exceptions to the principle which it establishes.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 3295, 3640
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; right to be heard;
Judgment 3640
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.
Considerations 17-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends with greater cogency that he was never provided with the full content of the witness statements forming the basis of the accusations against him, nor was he informed of the witnesses’ names. It is true that the witness statements were not appended to the report drawn up at the end of the investigation and, as mentioned in a footnote in that document, the identity of the witnesses was deliberately not disclosed. [...]
[T]his strict observance of confidentiality by UNESCO might be seen as departing from the Tribunal’s established case law according to which “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” and, “under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers). [...]
[W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).
In the instant case, the investigation report contained an extremely detailed description of all the instances of unwelcome behaviour by the complainant towards the 21 women identified as victims of his conduct, and their names were given in almost all cases. The complainant was therefore plainly apprised of the content of all the testimony taken during the investigation and of the e-mails which he had not been allowed to see. Furthermore, although, as stated above, the identity of the witnesses was not revealed to him, it is obvious that most of the information recorded in the report could only have come from the 21 persons concerned themselves. The complainant was therefore given a real opportunity to dispute the various items of evidence gathered in the course of proceedings against him. Moreover, it is clear from the above-mentioned comments which he submitted to the Organization on 18 November 2011 to rebut the charges of which he had been notified, that he had in fact been able to prepare them without any particular difficulty. Indeed, he himself described these comments as “clarifications and objections to the accusations of sexual harassment against [him], based on the whole file, and in particular on the IOS investigation report”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3295
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; sexual harassment; witness;
Judgment 3272
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a vacant post due to procedural flaw and violation of her right to due process.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to be heard; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3216
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party (see Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2700, under 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Board, which ultimately relied upon it, was obliged to advise the complainant of the receipt of new evidence and give her an opportunity to respond before taking it into consideration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2700
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to be heard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3209
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.
Considerations 13 and 14
Extract:
The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
"[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3200
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Paragraph 5.2 [of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual] must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the fundamental right of due process to know the name of the accuser except in those circumstances where revealing the identity of the accuser could undermine the integrity of the investigation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 5.2 of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; opening of an investigation; procedural rights during investigation; witness;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[A]n investigation must be conducted in such a way as to ensure that there is an opportunity for the staff member concerned to test the evidence and answer the charge made. In the case of summary dismissal, the decision-maker must be satisfied to the requisite standard that misconduct has occurred as charged and, also, that the misconduct is such as to justify summary dismissal."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; right to reply; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3070
112th Session, 2012
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination of employment; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3065
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; inquiry; investigation;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
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; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Consistent with the Tribunal’s case law that “it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant’s case” (Judgment 2510, under 7), the complainant’s application is refused.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; duty to inform; right to be heard;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
"The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Absolute privilege also operates to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. A tribunal would not be independent and impartial, nor seen to be so, if it were to assume the role of dictating to the parties the evidence and arguments that they can advance in their cases. That is not to say that a tribunal cannot control its own proceedings by, for example, excluding irrelevant evidence or striking out scandalous pleadings. Nor does it mean that a tribunal cannot draw inferences by reason of the nature of the evidence or argument presented, including in appropriate cases, adverse inferences as to the motive of the party relying on that evidence or argument. But if the evidence or argument is relevant to the issues to be decided, it is for the parties alone to determine whether they will rely on it. And because the parties must have that freedom or privilege, a tribunal cannot apply sanctions in separate proceedings with respect to the evidence or arguments advanced, particularly not after the proceedings have been completed. Were it otherwise, there would be no finality to litigation."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; evidence; independence; judicial review; submissions;
Judgment 3014
111th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the case law, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous (see Judgment 1306, under 2) to such an extent that it precludes any reasonable execution of the judgment. An application for interpretation cannot be filed to obtain an opinion on a legal issue, to obtain a reply from the Tribunal to a question that it was not required to address in the context of the judgment to which the application relates, or to circumvent an internal procedure in which disputes regarding the execution of the judgment could be resolved in accordance with the adversarial principle.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; application for interpretation;
Judgment 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[P]erformance appraisal procedures must be 'both transparent and adversarial'. That is unlikely to be the case where the prescribed procedures are not observed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; case law; due process; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw; work appraisal;
Judgment 2836
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[T]he procedures used to assess the performance of international civil servants must be both transparent and adversarial."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; official; organisation's duties; work appraisal;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"While internal investigative reports cannot be the sole basis for disciplinary action against a staff member, they may nevertheless serve as a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings if they yield indications of irregularities justifying this (see, in this respect, Judgment 2365, under 5(e)). When the organisation concerned initiates proceedings in the light of such reports, it is not itself obliged to repeat all the investigations recorded in these documents, but must simply ensure that the person in question is given the opportunity to reply to the findings they contain so as to respect the rights of defence."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary charges; disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
