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

Right to reply (184,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right to reply
Total judgments found: 142

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >



  • Judgment 2229


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the principles relating to the protection of information, staff members are entitled, even outside the context of a dispute, to have access to significant information concerning them which is in the possession of the administration [...] This applies a fortiori in the context of a procedure in which such information is used to support a decision affecting a staff member. There are, however, special cases in which higher dictates preclude its disclosure (on this issue, see Judgment 1756, under 10(b)). A provision [...] which stipulates that the reports of joint disciplinary committees or other boards of enquiry are confidential, cannot be construed as preventing the disclosure of such reports to a staff member adversely affected by a measure taken against him. otherwise, the higher principle of the right to be heard would be violated."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; right to reply;

    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 2222


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5-6

    Extract:

    "The decisive factor behind the request for the complainant's diplomatic immunity to be waived [...] was not brought to the complainant's knowledge. That might have given him a chance to identify his accusers and, if need be, armed with that knowledge, to explain to his hierarchical superiors the reasons for the serious charges brought against him, before the decision was taken to waive his diplomatic immunity [...] by virtue of the right to information recognised by the tribunal's case law, particularly Judgment 1756, the organization, which held information that was so important to the complainant, had an obligation to bring it to his knowledge. It may be concluded from the above that the organization violated the complainant's right to be informed and injured his dignity and reputation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; complainant; consequence; decision; duty to inform; elements; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; waiver of immunity;



  • Judgment 2190


    94th Session, 2003
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant's claim that the Tribunal should order the organization to undertake disciplinary investigations into the actions of [...] the staff member who allegedly entered a 'frivolous and dilatory' plea of irreceivability before the [Headquarters] Board [of Appeal], clearly cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, which has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against international organisations, let alone to cast judgment on the means of defence used on behalf of such organisations in the context of internal appeal proceedings or litigation."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; internal appeal; internal appeals body; investigation; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2062


    91st Session, 2001
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not use [the confidential documents submitted by the organisation] to the complainant's detriment unless he has had the opportunity to see them beforehand".

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; right to reply; submissions; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1977


    89th Session, 2000
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant refused to avail himself of his right to respond to allegations during the internal investigations of his serious misconduct. "In these circumstances, the complainant's request for a hearing is manifestly unjustified. The complainant has offered no evidence at any stage of the proceedings against him, therefore, such a hearing could not possibly add anything to the record before the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    evidence; misconduct; oral proceedings; refusal; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;



  • Judgment 1929


    88th Session, 2000
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Compulsory transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right of the staff member to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the option for him 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 among the disciplinary sanctions set out in the Staff Regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of the alleged professional shortcomings of the staff member which may, by their nature, give rise to disciplinary sanctions."

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's duties; right to reply; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant was transferred without prior notice and without an opportunity to be heard. "Taken together, the material circumstances give grounds for considering that the impugned transfer partly constituted a hidden disciplinary sanction. [...] The impugned decision must, therefore, be set aside and the procedure resumed from the point at which it was flawed [...]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 10 OF THE UPU STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's duties; remand; right to reply; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer;



  • Judgment 1817


    86th Session, 1999
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given his full say."

    Keywords:

    case pending; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; right of appeal; right to reply;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The case law says that an organisation may not take unilateral action that affects status before giving the staff member the opportunity of answering (see Judgment 1484 [...]). And that rule applies, of course, to dismissal of a probationer."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; right to reply; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1815


    86th Session, 1999
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Board responsible for appraising the complainant's application for personal promotion had put forward a negative recommendation. "To ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome. And one such item is the names of the Advisory Body's members. Who they are may of course affect its reasoning and the weight its report carries, and so the staff member should be allowed at least to comment. That is why the Tribunal will acknowledge a complainant's right to know who sat in his case."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal promotion; promotion; refusal; right to reply; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 1796


    86th Session, 1999
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The complainant was reassigned because of his alleged poor attendance and time-keeping. "The [Organization's] treatment of him looks like punishment for conduct it disapproved of and for low output. So there should first have been due disciplinary process affording him full safeguards."

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; output; punctuality; right to reply; safeguard; transfer; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 1728


    84th Session, 1998
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "While it is true that the records of selection committees must be made available to appellate bodies, yet, insofar as they relate to staff other than the appellants themselves, they are confidential, and there is no general requirement of disclosure to such appellants."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.9.340.3

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; misconduct; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 1675


    84th Session, 1998
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[The Organisation] pleads that the hearing of witnesses by the Disciplinary Board need not be adversarial and that the inquiry will be if the Board hears witnesses called by both sides. the plea is mistaken. An inquiry will be adversarial only if the parties attend, or have at least been duly invited to attend, the hearing of witnesses."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: RULE NO. 12 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 1673


    84th Session, 1998
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Whether proceedings are judicial or disciplinary it would be a breach of due process "to let one of the parties address issues of fact or of law without letting the other attend and comment."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; right to reply;



  • Judgment 1661


    83rd Session, 1997
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complainant has applied for hearings to take evidence from several witnesses and from himself [...]". The Tribunal holds that there is no need for hearings or from the taking of evidence from the proposed witnesses and gives six reasons why.

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; evidence; oral proceedings; refusal; right to reply; submissions; testimony;



  • Judgment 1639


    83rd Session, 1997
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Director-General took the view that since the complainant admitted misconduct there was no need to give her any opportunity of defending herself. "The defendant's argument is mistaken. Before it notified to her the decision of summary dismissal it had brought no charges against her, and she therefore had no case to answer. And once it had made the decision to dismiss her without giving her a prior hearing, it had already acted in breach of due process. [...] An international organisation must inform the staff member of any charges it is levelling against him and give him the opportunity of answering before it takes any disciplinary action: audi alteram partem is a requirement it must observe in all circumstances. [...] Even though she had admitted to the incident, she did not on that account forfeit her right to be heard, be it to make a plea in mitigation or to give her own version of the facts or to raise any other issue she wished in her own defence."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complainant; disciplinary measure; duty to inform; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1619


    83rd Session, 1997
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "When a staff member makes charges as serious as sexual harassment an organisation must do its utmost to afford protection. But it must at the same time carry out a full and proper inquiry that respects the rights of the accused. Here the WHO obviously failed to do so. Instead it originally preferred to let the Tribunal rule without adducing evidence that might have proved material. It thereby erred, and the complainant is entitled to redress on that account."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply; sexual harassment;



  • Judgment 1590


    82nd Session, 1997
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant contends "that it was improper of the Organisation to accuse him of unsatisfactory work without bringing disciplinary proceedings which would have afforded him safeguards; he was denied his right of reply and suffered a hidden disciplinary sanction. The Organisation has never accused the complainant of any sort of conduct warranting disciplinary action but merely of poor performance. So the change in his duties did not amount to a hidden disciplinary sanction".

    Keywords:

    assignment; conduct; disciplinary procedure; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 1518


    81st Session, 1996
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 11-12

    Extract:

    The President's decision on the complainant's internal appeal was made on the strength of internal correspondence that the complainant had never seen and that the Appeals Committee had never considered. "That constituted a gross breach of due process." Because of the breach of Article 113(1) of the Staff Regulations on the procedure before the Appeals Committee the President's decision must be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 113(1) OF EPO'S SERVICE REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    breach; case sent back to organisation; consequence; decision; decision quashed; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1484


    80th Session, 1996
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "According to general precepts of administrative law and the law of the international civil service an organization may not unilaterally take action that affects a staff member's status before letting him have his say".

    Keywords:

    general principle; international civil service principles; organisation's duties; right to reply;



  • Judgment 1418


    78th Session, 1995
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the Union did not break the rules of due process. Indeed [the complainant] has had unfettered access to the channels for internal appeal under the Staff Regulations, since he put his case to the Joint Appeals Committee before coming to the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; judicial review; right of appeal; right to reply;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "The written submissions for which the Tribunal's Statute provides have afforded [the complainant] a further opportunity to gain particulars of the charges and to answer them in full in his rejoinder. The plea of breach of due process cannot be sustained."

    Keywords:

    complaint; due process; iloat statute; right to reply; submissions;



  • Judgment 1395


    78th Session, 1995
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant was dismissed under Staff Rule 2.6.01 which says that "appointments shall terminate on account of [...] g) dismissal for specified reasons of unsuitability." The Tribunal holds that this means, "first that the reasons must be 'specified' in some form that enables the staff member to understand them clearly and, secondly, that the statement of them must be prior to the actual dismissal. It is, after all, a general principle of law that the staff member must be afforded a proper opportunity, again prior to dismissal, to answer any allegations of unsuitability."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: EMBL'S STAFF RULE 2.6.01

    Keywords:

    due process; duty to substantiate decision; flaw; general principle; organisation's duties; reinstatement; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top