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

Due process (187,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Due process
Total judgments found: 170

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >



  • Judgment 3161


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him which, in his view, violates his status as an employee.

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    "[T]he task of the Internal Appeals Committee is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made. While provisions establishing an internal appeal committee or board may limit its functions, this is not the case in relation to this Internal Appeals Committee established under the Service Regulations applying to the permanent employees of the EPO.
    Of course the authority of the Internal Appeals Committee is limited to making recommendations and, to that extent, the ultimate decision-making power remains, in a case such as the present, with the President of the Office. However, the President is obliged to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Committee and not avoid addressing the reasoning of its members by wrongly indicating, as in this case, that the majority of the Committee’s members had exceeded the limits of their role in determining the appeal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; case law; decision; decision-maker; due process; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; internal appeals body; recommendation;



  • Judgment 3158


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant only became aware of the substitution of one of the members of the Internal Appeals Committee (which occurred after the hearings) when he received a copy of the Internal Appeals Committee’s opinion. For the sake of transparency and due process, the complainant should have been informed at the time of the substitution so that he could exercise his right to contest the composition. The fact that the alternate member voted in the complainant’s favour does not redeem that flaw. Moreover, the alternate member did not attend and participate in the hearing, whereas his participation could have changed or influenced the Internal Appeals Committee’s final opinion."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply;



  • 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 3138


    113th Session, 2012
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Suspension is an interim precautionary measure which, in principle, must be adopted urgently, and this will often make it impossible to invite the person concerned to express their opinion beforehand. However, this person’s right to be heard must be exercised before the substantive decision is taken to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 2365, under 4(a)).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635

    Keywords:

    due process; right to be heard; suspension;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    It is certainly regrettable that the complainant’s professional mailbox was consulted in her absence. However, the evidence in the file shows that she was informed that such a technical check was imminent and – naturally – it had to be carried out urgently.

    Keywords:

    due process; email; evidence;



  • Judgment 3137


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    A staff member is entitled to due process before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. In this regard, he or she must be given, at the very least, an opportunity to test the evidence on which the charges are based, to give his own account of the facts, to put an argument that the conduct in question does not amount to misconduct and that, even if it does, it should not attract the proposed sanction (see Judgments 2254, consideration 6, and 2475, consideration 22). The complainant was given an opportunity to reply to the OIOS report but, beyond that, it is not clear that the requirements of due process were observed. However, it is clear that he had no opportunity to test the evidence of others interviewed by the OIOS or any other evidence that was used against him. This was a serious breach of due process upon which the complainant was entitled to rely in his internal appeals, without seeking a hearing in which to give evidence or to test the evidence of others.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254, 2475

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; due process;



  • Judgment 3130


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [C]andidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must “shield” the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020

    Keywords:

    due process; general principle; patere legem;



  • Judgment 3117


    113th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] submits that the decision [...] breached the principle of due process in that it was taken on the basis of information which had not previously been brought to his attention. In this connexion the Tribunal notes that, when an international organisation examines a request submitted by a staff member, it is not bound to inform that person of all the steps which it is taking in that respect. On the other hand, in that or any other situation, it does have a duty to provide the person concerned with any items of information which might have a bearing on the outcome of his/her claims (see Judgments 1815, under 5, or 2315, under 27 ). [...]
    However, according to the Tribunal's case law, failure to disclose an item of information will in any case not render a decision unlawful where this flaw has been remedied in the course of an internal appeal procedure or of proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 301, under 2, 1815, under 4 and 5, or 2558, under 5(a)), and that is precisely what occurred in this case since [...] a copy of the email in question was forwarded to the complainant at the same time as the disputed decision, with the result that he was duly enabled to challenge its content during the internal appeal proceedings.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 301, 1815, 2315, 2558

    Keywords:

    delay; delay in internal procedure; due process; duty to inform; motivation;



  • Judgment 3108


    113th Session, 2012
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    An internal appellate body is the primary fact-finding body in the internal appeals process. It is the body that sees and hears the witnesses and must assess the reliability of the evidence adduced. A full appreciation of the evidence can only occur in circumstances where individuals whose interests may have been adversely affected have an opportunity not only to be present to hear the evidence but also to test the evidence through cross-examination. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2513, under 11, "in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the JAB must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and [...] those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2513

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; internal appeals body; witness;



  • Judgment 3032


    111th Session, 2011
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    "[W]hen an international organisation wants to fill a post by competition, it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law (see, for example, Judgment 2163 [...], under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163

    Keywords:

    appointment; case law; competition; consequence; decision; due process; general principle; organisation's duties; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2940


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;



  • 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 2907


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, international organisations may undertake restructuring by reducing or reassigning their staff, even for the sole purpose of making budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgment 2156, under 8). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156

    Keywords:

    budgetary reasons; case law; consequence; due process; implied decision; official; organisation; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation; right; staff reduction; written rule;



  • Judgment 2882


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832

    Keywords:

    breach; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2865


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Administrative authorities and organs have a duty to ensure, without prompting, that their procedures are properly conducted. It cannot be argued that a staff member has breached the principle of good faith by failing to request that these procedures be expedited. Indeed, a host of reasons connected with the employment relationship may explain that person's reluctance to chase up the advisory or decision-making organ."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; advisory body; breach; due process; executive body; general principle; good faith; grounds; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; request by a party; working relations;



  • Judgment 2835


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    "The complainant takes issue with the composition of the Selection Board. [...] He relies on Judgment 1549, under 12, where the Tribunal stated that «[...] after the process of selection has begun the terms of competition may not be changed [...]»."
    "The Tribunal rejects this argument. First, the complainant's reliance on Judgment 1549 is misplaced. While the cited passage does refer to a selection decision, the composition of the Selection Board is not one of the «terms of competition»."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549

    Keywords:

    competition; composition of the internal appeals body; due process; selection board;



  • 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 2771


    106th Session, 2009
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses (for example, Judgments 999 and 2475), to object to evidence (for example, Judgment 2468) or to have a verbatim record of the evidence (for example, Judgment 1384). These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses' testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out to the Assistant Director-General and, later, the Director of the Human Resources Management Division, inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...]. In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the complainant had and exercised a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. There is no suggestion that he was in any way circumscribed in the way his appeal was conducted. Accordingly, the process, viewed in its entirety from the making of the subordinate's harassment complaint until the Committee reported to the Director-General, was one that satisfied the requirements of due process."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1384, 2468, 2475

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply; testimony;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation - that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case - is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the "investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made". At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475, and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2769


    106th Session, 2009
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "As it cannot be confirmed but for the flaw in the selection process that the complainant would have been appointed to the post of Section Head, this aspect of the claim for material damages is rejected. The complainant, however, lost a valuable opportunity to be properly considered for the said post."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; due process; injury; material damages; material injury; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 2757


    105th Session, 2008
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "[I]t is a fundamental aspect of due process that a person should not take a decision in a matter in which he or she has a personal interest. [However, in] some circumstances, necessity will direct that a decision be taken by a person with a direct personal interest in the outcome."

    Keywords:

    bias; decision; due process; exception; organisation's interest; safeguard; settlement out of court; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2700


    104th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal [...] draws attention to the fact that, irrespective of the circumstances, an official is always entitled to have his case judged in proper, transparent and fair proceedings which comply with the general principles of law."

    Keywords:

    due process; equity; formal requirements; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff member's interest;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >


 
Last updated: 24.01.2022 ^ top