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 1144
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
The complainant, who has objections to his performance report, contends that the EPO's reporting system does not treat all officials on the same basis inasmuch as one group of officials may complete a shortened report and because the system is in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that everyone shall be entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. But the Tribunal considers that "the complainant has not shown that he himself has been adversely affected because staff who belong to another category have [the aforementioned] option." Moreover, "the Convention puts obligations on signatory States, and it is not apparent that it is applicable [...]. At all events, even supposing that the Convention as such was applicable, the Tribunal's answer to the plea would be that the principles underlying Article 6 are fully recognised in the Service Regulations".
Keywords:
enforcement; equal treatment; international instrument; lack of injury; performance report; rating; right to reply;
Judgment 1133
72nd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was charged with serious misconduct. An inquiry was held to which the complainant was not invited to give evidence. The Tribunal holds that "the failure of the WHO to afford the complainant an opportunity to be present at the Personnel Department's taking of statements and to put questions to the witnesses amounts to breach of due process. The Tribunal stated the material principle in Judgment 999 : whoever makes inquiries of the kind that were made in this case must be scrupulous in not taking evidence from one party without the other's knowledge. Whether or not the evidence did work to the complainant's prejudice is irrelevant. It is sufficient that it might have done so, and it is not the likelihood but the risk of prejudice that is fatal." [See Judgment 2601, under 7.]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 2601
Keywords:
due process; evidence; misconduct; right to reply; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 1127
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"There is no requirement in the Rules that [the report of an advisory body] should be communicated to the official before the Director General takes his decision. In any event the complainant has had the opportunity of addressing the contents of the report in her pleadings to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; disclosure of evidence; lack of injury; report; right to reply; tribunal;
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 1103
71st Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant objects to her duties as de facto Head of the German Section being given to another reviser. There was no breach of her right to a hearing. "She had ample opportunity to put her case before the decision was confirmed and in the internal appeal proceedings. And considering the circumstances in which the decision was taken and its limited effect, the EPO was not bound to consult her beforehand anyway."
Keywords:
assignment; organisation's duties; right to reply;
Judgment 1082
70th Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"By virtue of their contractual relationship and the trust that therefore prevails between them, an organisation owes its employee a duty to declare its intention of dismissing him and to let him plead his case. The principle is asserted in Judgment 907 [...] under 4. Although the complainant presumably knew of the CIPEC's plight and the need for reform she was never told of the intention of dismissing her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 907
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; duty to inform; flaw; organisation's duties; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 1070
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed under ITU Staff Rule 10.1.1a) for having claimed and accepting reimbursement for treatment whose costs had already been met by other schemes. He alleges denial of his right to a hearing and his right to see the case records. "The Tribunal is satisfied that he had ample opportunity to find out exactly what the serious charges against him were and to state his case at each point in the proceedings."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF RULE 10.1.1A)
Keywords:
conduct; disclosure of evidence; right to reply; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 1052
69th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant objects to the non-renewal of his appointment after probation. He alleges breach of his right to a hearing. "The plea is unsound because there was no element of disciplinary sanction in the decision. What the administration did was to make an assessment of the complainant's performance and it was under no duty to enter into any dialogue with him on the subject."
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 1038
69th Session, 1990
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant, who is challenging the non-renewal of his contract, is concerned that the Director-General's decision may have been prompted by unsubstantiated charges. He alleges breach of his right to a hearing. "The plea is unsound because there was no element of disciplinary sanction in that decision [...] The Director-General made a value judgement which did not require entering into a dialogue with him. There is no reason to hold that the Director-General was not genuine in his evaluation of the complainant's suitability for the post of administrator or that his decision was based on any mistake of fact."
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; right to reply;
Judgment 999
68th Session, 1990
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant was accused of grave misconduct. An inquiry was held into the facts in the absence of the complainant. The Tribunal held that "whoever makes inquiries of the kind that were made in this case must be scrupulous in not taking evidence from one party without the other's knowledge. Whether or not the evidence did work to the complainant's prejudice is irrelevant. It is sufficient that it might have done so, and it is not the likelihood but the risk of prejudice that is fatal. There can be no certainty that justice will be done if evidence is taken in the absence of one of the parties. The proceedings in the appeal the complainant lodged against the decision [...] to dismiss him show a breach of due process".
(note: see Judgment 2601, under 7)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2601
Keywords:
flaw; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; organisation's duties; right to reply; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Breach of the Staff Regulations and of general principles, including breach of due process, is a flaw in the appeal proceedings which also taints the impugned decision, and for that reason the [final] decision [to confirm the complainant's dismissal for grave misconduct] cannot stand. What does stand, however, since it is only the appeal proceedings that were improper, is the prior decision [of dismissal]." "The complainant duly filed his internal appeal with the Regional Board, and the Organization shall resume the internal appeal proceedings. The competent authorities shall reconsider the internal appeal in the light of the submissions already made by WHO and by the complainant and any further submissions the parties may make in adversarial proceedings".
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; flaw; internal appeal; misconduct; procedural flaw; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 987
68th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideraton 5
Extract:
"In support of its contention that there was no breach of his right to a hearing, the FAO cites earlier facts which it submits show that the complainant knew full well that his position was, to say the least, uncertain. Though there are no special rules on the subject and the procedure will depend on the circumstances of each case, the organization has a duty to show that the staff member cannot reasonably have failed to realise he was under threat of termination."
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to inform; evidence; formal requirements; organisation; probationary period; right to reply; termination of employment;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The right to a hearing, which is a general principle of law, means that the organization may not terminate a staff member unless it has already informed him of its intention and of the grounds for termination. Such information must be given before the notification of the termination and not at the same time".
Keywords:
date; duty to inform; flaw; probationary period; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 946
65th Session, 1988
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
"In this case the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was tainted with several fatal flaws. First, the decision was not taken by the competent authority. [...] What was even more serious was the failure to inform the complainant of the reasons for the decision."
Keywords:
competence; contract; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; flaw; grounds; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
Judgment 922
65th Session, 1988
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal set aside the original dismissal and ordered review. Compliance with its ruling calls for more than a bald affirmation that there has been further inquiry. The complainant ought to have been received and given his say, and the decision he is now challenging ought to have set out the findings of the further inquiry. Such response to the Tribunal's ruling is cavalier and unacceptable."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; consequence; decision; flaw; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply;
Judgment 907
64th Session, 1988
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"In Judgment 807 the Tribunal remanded the case for a new decision. It gave due instructions, observing that the complainant had not had the opportunity of answering the allegations about his work and the disruption of his section; it said that the organisation might resume the dismissal procedure on some other grounds provided for under the Staff Regulations. There were, quite plainly, supposed to be adversarial proceedings before the new decision was taken."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 807
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; consequence; flaw; organisation's duties; right to reply; termination of employment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The general rule is that no decision adverse to a staff member may be taken unless he has been made aware of the organisation's intention and been given an opportunity to state his case."
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; flaw; general principle; right to reply;
Judgment 901
64th Session, 1988
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was on mission when he was terminated as persona non grata. "There was no objective report on this case. [...] All this makes it plain that summary termination under 11.4 [of the Staff Regulations] was in breach of the complainant's right of reply and cannot stand."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 11.4 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
contract; field; fixed-term; flaw; persona non grata; procedural flaw; project personnel; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 890
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was confirmed only after an extension of his probation. Because he was not notified in time of the decision to extend the probationary period, the complainant seeks to have it set aside. "Where it finds a formal flaw, the Tribunal will determine whether it taints the essence of the decision. [...] Late communication therefore will not make the decision unlawful unless the probationer suffers injury. The complainant did not."
Keywords:
administrative delay; date; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; injury; lack of injury; probation report; probationary period; right to reply;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The probationer [is] plainly entitled to be given a full explanation of the assessment of his work in sufficient time to enable him to make comments of his own before the President takes a decision."
Keywords:
date; probation report; purpose; right to reply; time limit;
Judgment 888
64th Session, 1988
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant was accused of submitting false certificates for sick leave and was dismissed for serious misconduct. He claims to have been unaware that the certificates were false at the time he presented them and that, while awaiting the outcome of the judicial inquiry underway, he should be presumed innocent. The complainant's dismissal was confirmed by the Chief of personnel. That decision was "defective in that it did not reply to the complainant's letter inviting the organization to wait for the outcome of the trial and did not require him to furnish his full defence. It was made without the complainant's having fully exercised his right to be heard." Because it is tainted with a procedural flaw, the decision is quashed and the Tribunal orders the complainant to be reinstated and awarded an amount equivalent to the pay which he lost between the date of dismissal and that of reinstatement.
Keywords:
amount; flaw; material damages; medical certificate; misrepresentation; moral injury; procedural flaw; reinstatement; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 804
61st Session, 1987
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"For want of other evidence the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the consultation required by the order [laying down the procedure to be followed when the reclassification of a post is requested] never took place. The requirement of an on-the-spot evaluation is not met by just taking note of the staff member's application: there must be a meeting and discussion with him on any points it may raise"
Keywords:
flaw; inquiry; investigation; post classification; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 665
56th Session, 1985
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The reason given for non-renewal of the complainant's contract was unsatisfactory performance. The evaluation report for 1981 was signed long after the time limit laid down in the Staff Rules. Only a few weeks elapsed between the completion of the 1981 report and the processing of the 1982 report. As a result, the impugned decision took no account of the fact that between the complainant's two last performance reports he was not given time to add his objections or to show he could come up to expectation. The decision overlooked an essential fact and drew clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The complainant is entitled to damages.
Keywords:
administrative delay; contract; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; material damages; mistaken conclusion; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; performance report; right to reply; time limit; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 623
53rd Session, 1984
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant pleas that he had no chance to present his case to the Appeals Committee in person. "All that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, without arbitrary restrictions, either in writing or orally."
Keywords:
condition; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
