|
|
 |
|
|
Conflict of interest (717,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Conflict of interest
Total judgments found: 34
< previous | 1, 2
Judgment 4238
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant contends that the GBA ignored his reservation concerning one of its members whom he suggested may have had a conflict of interest. According to the Tribunal’s case law, it is a general rule of law that a person called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4234
129th Session, 2020
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The proposal to dismiss the complainant was drawn up by the Director General and was introduced by the OIE’s counsel at the Council’s meeting. It is not disputed that the Director General and his Deputy did not leave the meeting room after the complainant was heard. The OIE explains in this regard that although those two senior officials are not members of the Council, the applicable rules state that they have to attend its meetings in order, among other reasons, to provide secretarial support. According to the Organisation, they “facilitated” the rest of the meeting but did not participate in the actual deliberations. These explanations are confirmed by the minutes of the meeting of the Council on 1 October 2015, which the Tribunal has examined in camera.
However, the fact remains that, under a general rule of law which is not unique to the international civil service, a person called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his authority must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. The duty to act impartially is incumbent not only on the authority competent for issuing the final decision, but also on bodies responsible for making a recommendation to this authority (see Judgments 2667, consideration 5, and 3958, consideration 11).
The circumstance that the complainant had initiated criminal proceedings against the Director General was liable to cast doubt on the latter’s impartiality, particularly because in this case the disciplinary action had been taken more than six months after the events and shortly after the submission of the request for compensation for harassment. The Tribunal observes in this respect that the proposal for a disciplinary measure was issued on the same day that the request for compensation for moral harassment was rejected. In these particular circumstances, the Director General ought to have entrusted the matter to the next most senior official whose impartiality could not be disputed (see Judgment 3958, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2667, 3958
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality;
Judgment 4058
127th Session, 2019
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
Though the complainant raised the issue of conflict of interest of the Head of the Legal Service and the Head of Administration and Personnel, neither the Appeals Board nor the Secretary General in his final decision addressed this fundamental issue.
The existence of the above-mentioned conflict of interest is enough of a vitiating procedural flaw to require the setting aside of the decisions [...].
Keywords:
conflict of interest; final decision; internal appeals body; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4014
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 to investigate his harassment complaint by an external investigator and not by an investigation panel provided for in the applicable rules.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Even if some members of the Investigation Panel believed that they were not in a conflict of interest position and could perform their functions impartially, the fact that the complainant was a member of a small group of nine staff members on the Investigation Panel meant that a perception of conflict of interest could not be avoided. It is also observed that there is no evidence that the complainant was targeted because of the roles he played. His harassment complaint was referred to an external investigator because of the conflict of interest problem and for no other reason. The FAO was entitled to take this step of referring the matter to an external investigator and there was no legal error in it doing so.
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4006
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.
Consideration 14
Extract:
Whether the complainant’s belief was correct or not is not raised directly for consideration in these proceedings. But it is almost certainly correct that either by operation of the doctrine of necessity, or because the Registrar could have delegated the power to deal with a formal complaint of harassment against himself under Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005, a complaint under the Administrative Instruction was capable of being processed (see the commentary in Judgment 2757, consideration 19) and, if made out, remedies of the type sought by the complainant (including compensation) could have been awarded. If this is correct, then the complainant was denied an opportunity to pursue his claim of harassment on its merits, which did not involve establishing conduct of a particularly egregious type and which would have made available many of the remedies he sought, if harassment could, as a matter of fact, be established without crossing the “threshold of gravity” thought to be established by Article 46 of the Rome Statute. If the complainant now elects to pursue a formal harassment complaint under Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005, then it would be desirable for these matters to be taken into account by the Administration in assessing whether it should raise barriers, such as time limits, in order to prevent this course being pursued.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; necessity;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Consideration 8
Extract:
These circumstances are not the same as those in Judgment 3184, for example, in which the Tribunal stated, in consideration 15, that if a member of an internal appeal board had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new internal appeal board to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3996
126th Session, 2018
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her claim of harassment, the decision to permanently transfer her and the decision to offer her an extension of appointment in her new position.
Consideration 4J
Extract:
[T]he Executive Secretary’s discretionary power with respect to a transfer must necessarily yield to the objective appearance of a conflict of interest; even more, considering that the complainant herself had requested the written commitment, and that the conflict of interest cannot be superseded by a commitment or an agreement.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; discretion; transfer;
Judgment 3960
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision in which the Administrative Council decided to further maintain his suspension while reducing his salary by half until a final decision had been made in his case.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In this case, concurring with Judgment 3958, the ratio decidendi is the following: as it might reasonably be thought that the President was directly, specifically and individually offended by the misconduct for which the complainant was charged, he could not take part in any individual proceedings regarding the allegedly identified author of the alleged misconduct. The President’s participation in these proceedings has given rise to the unlawfulness of the individual decisions impugned with the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest; decision quashed;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 11
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “[i]t is a general rule of law that a person called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, he may consider himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice. Persons taking part in an advisory capacity in the proceedings of decision-making bodies are equally subject to the above-mentioned rule. It applies also to members of bodies required to make recommendations to decision-making bodies. Although they do not themselves make decisions, both these types of bodies may sometimes exert a crucial influence on the decision to be taken.” (Judgment 179, under 1; see also Judgments 2225, under 19, 2671, under 10, 2892, under 11, and 3732, under 3.) A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2225, 2671, 2892, 3732
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the present case, there is a conflict of interest on the part of the President. It stems from the fact that the alleged serious misconduct, with which the complainant was charged, might reasonably be thought to have offended the President specifically, directly and individually. This situation, by itself, casts doubts on the President’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the President would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. The argument raised by the President in his opinion to the Council (CA/C 6/15) [...], namely that pursuant to the applicable rules the President was acting within his competence and had the power and duty to take all necessary steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the Office, is immaterial. The question of a conflict of interest only arises if the official is competent. Accordingly, the question of competency is not an answer to a charge of a conflict of interest. Hence, the Administrative Council erred in not finding that the President had a conflict of interest in the matter. In this situation, in accordance with the provisions in force, the Administrative Council should have sent the matter back to the next most senior official to exercise authority instead of the President, who was precluded from exercising authority because of his conflict of interest (see Judgement 2892, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest;
Judgment 3862
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Considerations 26-27
Extract:
The complainant argues that this conclusion involves an error of law and the provisions concerning a potential conflict of interest are engaged when the conflict might improperly influence the performance of official duties and responsibilities. A Court Clerk does not perform duties which might be influenced by such a conflict and, accordingly, the provisions did not operate to require disclosure. However this argument involves too narrow a reading of the provisions which, particularly in relation to a court, should be construed purposefully. That is to say, they should be construed in a way that achieves the objects of the provisions which, in large measure, are intended to preserve and maintain the integrity of the organisation to which they apply. Courts must not only administer justice fairly and impartially (while this is obviously true of judges it is also true of the administrative structures supporting the judges) but must also be seen to be doing so.
The obligation to disclose serves several purposes. One is that once the conflict is disclosed remedial action might be taken by persons in authority to offset the effect or possible effect of bias created by the conflict. That might include the review or revision of decisions taken by a conflicted staff member or the allocation of tasks to a staff member who was not conflicted. Another is to enable persons in positions of authority (including supervisors) to counsel staff members about how best to manage and deal with the conflict of interest.
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 3732
123rd Session, 2017
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the contested JAC member could not be a member of the JAC assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the JAC had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. His impartiality may be open to question (see Judgment 2671, under 10) as there are reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgment 2225, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 2671
104th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A reasonable person, knowing that a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved. So much was decided in Judgment 179 in which it was said that 'failing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality'. [...] It follows that those persons who had been members of the first Appeals Committee were disqualified from membership of the second Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 1763
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15 and 17
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Director of the Division of Personnel [...] was both the chairman of the Disciplinary Board and the head of the department conducting the initial investigation. That the Director of the Division of Personnel should be chairman of the Board is required by paragraph 13(a) of section 13, Part II, of the Agency's Administrative Manual and does not constitute a procedural flaw, but does give rise to a situation in which there is a grave danger of an actual breach of procedural fairness. That is what in fact occurred. As the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, the Director had to refrain from personal involvement in the investigation. He must not be both judge and policeman. That, however, is what happened on at least one occasion. [...] This constitutes a serious breach of due process. [...] As chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board, the Director of the Division of Personnel had a duty to be and to appear to be impartial."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 13(A) OF SECTION 13, PART II, OF IAEA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest; disciplinary body; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; investigative body; procedural flaw;
< previous | 1, 2
|
|
|
|
|
