Due process (187,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Due process
Total judgments found: 185
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 3438
119th Session, 2015
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's request for reintegration was moot and that her other claims were devoid of merit.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he complainant [...] commented so extensively on the Secretary-General’s objections that most of her submissions to the Tribunal have been thoroughly debated by the parties in the internal appeal proceedings. In these circumstances, it would be excessively formalistic to find that there has been a breach of the right to be heard in this case."
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal;
Judgment 3374
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside for procedural flaw the impugned decision rejecting the complainant’s request for the reclassification of his post.
Consideration 17
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has consistently held, an organisation has an obligation to ensure that internal appeal procedures move forward with reasonable speed (see, for example, Judgment 2197, under 33)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
due process; reasonable time;
Judgment 3352
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the result of the evaluation of their job grade.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that the President acted properly in asking the competent Directorates [...] for advice prior to adopting the final decision. There is no requirement that the President inform the complainants of these discussions. The adversarial principle was respected throughout the internal appeal proceedings. This type of post appeal consultation is normal and unexceptionable. There was no violation of the principle of nemo judex in causa propria as the internal appeal proceeding is a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding which results in a non-binding recommendation and the President’s final decision is a final administrative decision which can be appealed before the Tribunal for a final, neutral, judicial decision."
Keywords:
due process;
Judgment 3347
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Considerations 19 to 21
Extract:
"It is well settled that a staff member must have access to all evidence upon which a decision concerning that staff member is based. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3264, under 15:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a ‘staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him’. Additionally ‘[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality’ (see Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).”
It is equally well settled that a statement in a staff regulation or other internal document that a report is confidential will not “shield a report […] from disclosure to the concerned official”. Moreover, “[i]n the absence of any reason in law for non-disclosure of the report, such non-disclosure constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness” (Judgment 3264, under 16).
The fact that the complainant did not request a copy of the report of the IAOD, which investigated her claim of harassment, is irrelevant. She was entitled to receive a copy of it. Equally, it is not an answer to say that the complainant was given a summary of the report. In addition to the fact that she was entitled to the entire report, the summary did not contain any of the evidence upon which the conclusion was based. It simply stated that “[t]he IAOD investigation has not found facts that support the complainant’s allegations or that show she was entitled to have matters requested by her approved or that she was subjected to harassment, whether through a single incident or as an on-going pattern”. The complainant was effectively precluded from challenging the factual assertions and credibility of the witnesses interviewed and was left not knowing what evidence if any should be marshalled to counter the investigator’s conclusions.
As stated in the case law, a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the staff member. In the present case, the failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report prior to the Director General taking his 25 June decision renders that decision fundamentally flawed. However, as that decision was overtaken by subsequent events, the only remedy today is an award of moral damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264
Keywords:
due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3315
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks damages for the injury arising from breach of due process and institutional harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant claims material damages but has adduced no evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to obtain such damages, notwithstanding that the events in question occurred some years before she filed her complaint. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. There is no ground for the award of exemplary damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the flagrant breach of due process, as well as for the institutional harassment which she sustained. These are grave violations, for which the complainant is accordingly awarded moral damages in the sum of 65,000 United States dollars. She is also awarded 3,000 dollars in costs.
Keywords:
breach; damages; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Judgment 3314
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests compensation for the injury arising from inaction and delay by the Administration in pursuing her harassment complaint.
Consideration 25
Extract:
[T]he Organization denied the complainant the due process to which she was entitled in the investigation of her harassment complaint. The result was a delay which exposed the complainant to continued harassment. The Organization also breached its duty to provide an efficient internal redress process as a result of inordinate delay in the proceedings before the RBA and the HBA. The complaint is therefore well founded on these grounds and the complainant is entitled to damages.
Keywords:
due process; harassment;
Judgment 3295
116th Session, 2014
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant also takes the position that PAHO failed to give him a warning or the opportunity to correct the situation prior to bringing disciplinary action. In Judgment 1661, under 3, the Tribunal framed an organisation’s obligations in the following terms: “Before an organisation imposes a disciplinary penalty such as dismissal it must warn the staff member and give him the opportunity not only of stating his own case but also of refuting the organisation’s: in other words, there must be due process. So he must be told of the charges and of the evidence against him. If the proceedings are to be properly adversarial, he must be free to give his own version of the facts, refute that evidence, adduce his own, take part in the discussion of it, and at least once crossquestion the expert and other witnesses. See, for example, Judgments 512 […] under 5; 907 […] under 4; 999 […] under 5; 1082 […] under 18; 1133 […] under 7; 1212 […] under 3; 1228 […] under 4; 1251 […] under 8; 1384 […] under 5, 10 and 15; 1395 […] under 6; 1484 […] under 7 and 8.”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 512, 907, 999, 1082, 1133, 1212, 1228, 1251, 1384, 1395, 1484, 1661
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; organisation's duties; right to reply; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 3290
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Consideration 21
Extract:
As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3264 [...]:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality [citation omitted]” (Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process;
Judgment 3272
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a vacant post due to procedural flaw and violation of her right to due process.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to be heard; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).
Although Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations provides that the “proceedings of the [Reports] Board shall be regarded as secret”, this alone does not shield a report of the Board from disclosure to the concerned official. In the absence of any reason in law for non-disclosure of the report, such non-disclosure constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899
Keywords:
breach; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3234
115th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319
Keywords:
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3224
115th Session, 2013
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070
Keywords:
condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3172
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."
Keywords:
breach; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; general principle; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3162
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his appointment which, in his view, is flawed for breach of due process.
Consideration 22
Extract:
"An allegation of dishonesty is an allegation of unsatisfactory conduct that may result in disciplinary action. As such, it must be dealt with in accordance with the organisation’s prescribed procedures (see Judgment 1724, under 14). That was not done in this case. This failure deprived the complainant of an opportunity to defend himself against a serious allegation and reflects a serious breach of his right to due process. The breach is particularly egregious having regard to the complainant’s work and the nature of the allegations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1724
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary measure; due process; general principle; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; written rule;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
