Defamation (755,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Defamation
Total judgments found: 9

• Judgment 4804

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; complaint dismissed; confidentiality; defamation; injunction;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal holds that […] the statement regarding a pending case lodged by the complainant was presented in a neutral way, with no negative comments. It was not a defamatory statement warranting relief, because it was truthful and did not tarnish the reputation of the complainant (see Judgment 4478, consideration 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4478
  

  Keywords:

  defamation; professional reputation; relief claimed;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4478

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of delayed advancement to the next salary step for a period of 20 months, pursuant to Staff Rule 10.1.1.

  Considerations 7-9

  Extract:

  In Judgment 3106, consideration 9, the Tribunal identified two crucial aspects of the law of defamation:
  “The law of defamation is not concerned solely with the question whether a statement is defamatory in the sense that it injures a person’s reputation or tarnishes his or her good name. It is also concerned with the question whether the statement was made in circumstances that afford a defence. Broadly speaking, the defences to a claim in defamation mark out the boundaries of permissible debate and discussion. As a general rule, a statement, even if defamatory in the sense indicated, will not result in liability in defamation if it was made in response to criticism by the person claiming to have been defamed or if it was made in the course of the discussion of a matter of legitimate interest to those to whom the statement was published and, in either case, the extent of the publication was reasonable in the circumstances.”
  For the first aspect, it is for the organisation to prove the statement was defamatory. The standard is whether the publication of an untrue statement injures a person’s reputation or tarnishes her or his good name. Neither the complainant’s intention nor malice are essential elements of defamation. […] As stated in Judgment 2861, consideration 101, “[t]he essence of defamation is the publication of material to third parties, not to the person claiming to be defamed”. […]
  For the second aspect, it is for the complainant to prove that he has a valid defence. In Judgment 3106, consideration 9, the Tribunal listed two defences: a discussion of legitimate interest and a response to criticism or attack. […] In Judgment 2751, consideration 5, the Tribunal recognised another defence, namely that statements are privileged if made in legal proceedings, and the same applies to those of internal appeal bodies, because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course:
  “A litigant whose submissions contain language that is unacceptable, or ill-chosen, or damaging, or unseemly, does not thereby lose the immunity that attaches to statements made in judicial proceedings, however much the breach of good taste may be deplored.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2751, 2861, 3106
  

  Keywords:

  defamation; intention of parties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4448

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the Global Fund’s alleged failure to take a final decision on her formal complaint of harassment.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The complainant’s claim for compensation for alleged defamation is based on an organisation’s ongoing duty not to cause such injury to present as well as former staff members. This accords with the Tribunal’s case law in consideration 46 of Judgment 3613 that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members and that this duty, which flows from the general principles governing the international civil service, is also applicable as a matter of course to former staff members of an organisation (see also Judgment 2861).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 3613
  

  Keywords:

  defamation; former official;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4148

  
  128th Session, 2019
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for five working days.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  If comments by a staff member made in the context of a debate about employment matters are defamatory of another staff member (in the sense that the comments have injured a person’s reputation or tarnished her or his good name), the fact that they are defamatory does not, by itself, deny the staff member making the comments the protection afforded by the principle of freedom of association. So much is apparent from the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 3106, consideration 9. In that judgment the Tribunal noted in consideration 8 (citing Judgment 274, consideration 22) that the existence of a freedom of discussion and debate, inherent in the freedom of association, can have the consequence that when feelings run strong the discussion and debate can spill over into extravagant and even regrettable language. There are, of course, limits on the freedom of discussion and debate that the Tribunal noted in consideration 8 of Judgment 3106. In the present case, the GBA and the Director-General did take into account the complainant’s right to freedom of expression within the umbrella of the freedom of association but found that the language was inappropriate. However, the complainant clearly had strong and not obviously illegitimate views about the procedure finally adopted involving the use of the Clinical Attendance Memo form and the role of the President of the Staff Association as a member of the working group. The complainant was able to criticise him and was not obliged to do so, within the umbrella of the freedom of discussion and debate inherent in the freedom of association, in entirely temperate or polite language. The Tribunal is satisfied that what the complainant said was comprehended by her right to freedom of association and was thus not misconduct.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 3106
  

  Keywords:

  defamation; freedom of association; freedom of speech;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4012

  
  126th Session, 2018
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him compensation for the harm allegedly caused to him by the fact that emails that he considers to be defamatory were stored in a folder accessible to all users of the FAO’s IT network.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  compensation; complaint dismissed; defamation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3882

  
  124th Session, 2017
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with immediate effect for misconduct.

  Consideration 23

  Extract:

  The complainant alleges that inter-personal issues between him and his supervisor escalated into a campaign of defamation against him. However, he has not substantiated this allegation. Neither has he substantiated his further allegation that he was harassed and mobbed. He did not follow the internal procedures for lodging a formal complaint. Neither has he substantiated his allegation that serious procedural flaws in the course of the disciplinary proceedings amounted to harassment. Accordingly, these grounds of the complaint are unfounded.

  Keywords:

  defamation; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3166

  
  114th Session, 2013
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; defamation; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3106

  
  113th Session, 2012
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The second aspect of freedom of association that is relevant to the present case is that it necessarily involves freedom of discussion and debate. It was pointed out in Judgment 274, under 22, that “this freedom, when feelings run strong [...] can spill over into extravagant and even regrettable language”. This notwithstanding, the Tribunal has acknowledged that the freedom of discussion and debate is not absolute and that there may be cases in which an organisation can intervene if, for example, there is “gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives” (see Judgment 2227, under 7). Within this context, it is convenient to consider the allegedly defamatory nature of the e-mail in question.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2227
  

  Keywords:

  defamation; definition; freedom of association;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2751

  
  105th Session, 2008
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720
  

  Keywords:

  apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;