Right to information (664,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right to information
Total judgments found: 6

• Judgment 4739

  
  137th Session, 2024
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  As regards the complainant’s argument that his due process rights were violated, the Tribunal recalls its case law, recently confirmed in Judgment 4313, consideration 7, that “a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all material evidence that is likely to have a bearing on the outcome of her or his claims (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a)) and that failure to disclose that evidence constitutes a serious breach of the requirements of due process (see Judgment 3071, under 37)”, as well as that “in the context of an investigation into allegations of harassment, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, under 8, 3617, under 12, 4108, under 4, 4109, under 4, 4110, under 4, and 4111, under 4)”. Also, in Judgment 4217, consideration 4, the Tribunal held that “by refusing to provide the complainant with the [investigation] report […] during the internal appeals procedure it nevertheless unlawfully deprived her of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation” and “the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the report during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process”.
  In Judgment 4547, consideration 10, the Tribunal held that:
  “It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an international organisation is bound to grant a request from the staff member concerned for a copy of the report delivered by the investigative body at the end of an investigation into a harassment complaint, even if that means the report must be redacted in order to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation, in particular the testimony gathered during that investigation (see, in particular, Judgments 3347, considerations 19 to 21, and 3831, consideration 17, and also Judgments 3995, consideration 5, and 4217, consideration 4).”
  The legal vacuum in the Global Fund’s rules does not absolve the Administration from the obligation to disclose the investigation report to a person reporting harassment.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767, 3065, 3071, 3347, 3347, 3617, 3831, 3995, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4217, 4313, 4547
  

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, recently recalled in Judgment 4547, consideration 3, “a staff member who lodges a harassment complaint is plainly a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well founded, even though she or he would not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator in the event that the harassment was recognised. The staff member concerned is therefore entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4547
  

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The Global Fund’s refusal to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, even with reasonable redactions to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of the investigation, during the internal appeal process, seriously breached the complainant’s right to due process. It unlawfully deprived him of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process. It follows that the impugned decision […] was tainted by a fundamental flaw and must therefore be set aside […].

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeal; investigation report; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4547

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal emphasises [...] that a staff member who lodges a harassment complaint is plainly a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well founded, even though she or he would not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator in the event that the harassment was recognised. The staff member concerned is therefore entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541, [...] consideration 4, both of which concern harassment complaints). In the present case, and since such an explanation of reasons could, inter alia, support a possible claim for compensation for the injury suffered, the complainant should have been adequately informed, in the President’s final decision [...], of the reasons why the organisation did or did not recognise the existence of harassment by her supervisor (see Judgments 3096, consideration 15, and [...] 4541, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3096, 3965, 4207, 4541, 4541
  

  Keywords:

  harassment; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4035

  
  126th Session, 2018
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant accuses her former supervisor of moral harassment.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [F]irstly, an official’s right to be informed of the composition of the Appeals Board, the main purpose of which is to enable members of the Board to be recused, does not entitle her or him to be given the names of the Administration’s representative and observer, who are not members of the Board.
  Secondly, even assuming that the complainant was entitled to be provided with the documents that she wished to consult, the evidence does not show that the failure to disclose those documents had, in this case, a material impact on her right to be heard.

  Keywords:

  composition of the internal appeals body; disclosure of evidence; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant submits that [...] the Ethics Adviser failed to inform him of his right to be assisted or represented by a third person for the purpose of his defence during the preliminary assessment of the complaint. However, the defendant organisation contends, without this being contradicted by the complainant in his rejoinder, that the Ethics Adviser had explicitly drawn his attention to the provisions of item 18.2 expressly mentioning this right. The Tribunal considers that, in the instant case, this manner of proceeding satisfied the duty to inform, especially as the complainant is highly qualified and was thus plainly quite capable of understanding the content of these provisions.

  Keywords:

  due process; right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3414

  
  119th Session, 2015
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to remove his name from an e-mail distribution list on the ground that he had been released from his regular duties to work as President of the Staff Council.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "Communication between officials or groups of officials of an international organisation is essential for the effective functioning of the organisation. With the advent of e-mail, one practical and common means of communication within a group involves the creation of e-mail distribution lists so that information contained in an e-mail can be given routinely to all officials who have or may have a common interest in knowing that information by virtue of membership in that group. There is no reason to doubt that in the ordinary course the identity of officials who will receive such information by being on a particular distribution list, is a matter to be determined by the administration of the organisation by officials who have a leadership role within the group or by others. As a generalisation, no individual official has a right to assert that she or he is entitled to particular information simply by virtue of her or his own assessment of the position occupied by the official in the organisation’s structure and the correlative need for information in the face of a decision by another official that the information will not be provided."

  Keywords:

  right to information;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3094

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal makes the following observation. The complainant’s claims that she is entitled to participate in the investigation and that due process entitles her to information about the course of the investigation are equally without merit.

  Keywords:

  investigation; right to information;