|
|
 |
|
|
Confidential evidence (149, 150,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Confidential evidence
Total judgments found: 92
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law holds that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence upon which the competent authority bases its decision concerning them (see Judgments 4659, consideration 4, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, and 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organisation must provide staff members with the investigation report on which the disciplinary measure against them is based (see Judgments 4659, consideration 4). However, this must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of certain aspects of an investigation, particularly that of the witness statements gathered in the course of the investigation. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ protection and freedom of expression (see Judgment 3640, considerations 19 and 20). This case law implies that redaction is permissible when necessary to maintain the confidentiality of certain aspects of the investigation, especially to protect the interests of third parties (see Judgments 4815, consideration 14, and 4659, consideration 4).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 3214, 3295, 3640, 4659, 4815
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 5134
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his contract based on his unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal has its well-settled case law that organizations may withhold sensitive evidence to protect witnesses. However, safeguards must be in place to ensure that the staff member nevertheless receives sufficient disclosure to contest the substance of the allegations. In the present case, while summaries were provided, the complainant was denied access to the documents that were central to the contested decision. 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, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see, for example, Judgment 2700, consideration 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, consideration 23). […]
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 4217, consideration 4, regarding the disclosure of an investigation report in a similar situation, that “by refusing to provide the complainant with the report in question during the internal appeals procedure [the Organisation] unlawfully deprived [the complainant] of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation.[…]"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 4217
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's interest;
Judgment 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s precedents have it that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against them, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. However, where disciplinary proceedings are brought against officials who have been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused officials, but they must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which they need to defend themselves fully in these proceedings. In order to respect the right of defence, it is sufficient for the officials to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against them and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that they may effectively challenge the probative value thereof […]. In light of the Tribunal’s case law, due process does not necessarily require that the accused staff be provided with the verbatim transcripts of the interviews of the witnesses […]. In conclusion, it was sufficient that the complainant was provided with an accurate written record of the interviews, and this was done.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; investigation; sexual harassment; witness;
Judgment 4970
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure demoting her from grade P-3 to grade P-2.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[The complainant seeks an order for the disclosure of the source of the “subject misconduct complaint.] The […] order […] should not be made as the identity of the reporter is entirely irrelevant in relation to the nature of the allegations of misconduct involving the complainant (see Judgment 4247, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4247
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s to the alleged non-disclosure of the desk audit’s report concerning [the] position [in question], the Tribunal holds that the [organization] lawfully withheld it on grounds of confidentiality.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In its reply, IFAD requests the Tribunal to disregard a letter sent by the members of the Joint Appeals Board to the President of IFAD on 5 May 2017.
The Tribunal notes that, contrary to what IFAD contends, the letter in question, which made no mention of the confidential nature of its contents, was not confidential and there is nothing to prove that the complainant came to possess it improperly. There is therefore no reason for the Tribunal to disregard this item of evidence.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality;
Judgment 4253
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant takes issue with the Organization for having disclosed to certain representatives of Persian Gulf countries confidential emails that he had sent in 2009 to his superiors condemning current practices in those countries, which, he alleges, made him lose all credibility in the region and had adverse consequences for his reputation and professional opportunities after his retirement. The JAAB agreed that “such disclosure is neither appropriate nor acceptable, as it was probably detrimental to the dignity and the reputation of the complainant”, but it considered that the complainant was barred from presenting this argument in his harassment grievance.
The disclosure of these confidential emails, which is not disputed by the Organization, constitutes a serious violation of the obligation of good faith and the duty of care. This plea is well founded.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty of care; good faith;
Judgment 4247
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for serious misconduct.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] requested a copy of the [...] report of alleged misconduct and the identity of the person who made this report. Before the Tribunal, the complainant focuses on the Administration’s refusal to disclose the identity of the reporter of the suspected misconduct and contends that this raises a presumption of prejudice and bias as does the refusal to disclose the requested documents. In the absence of compelling reasons justifying the disclosure of the identity of the reporter of suspected misconduct, this request is also rejected. As stated in the Internal Oversight Charter at Paragraph 15, reports of possible misconduct to the Director, IOD, shall be received on a confidential basis and may also be made anonymously. As well, the IOD’s Intranet site specifically provides that the reporting of suspected misconduct may be made confidentially or anonymously. Additionally, contrary to the complainant’s assertion, the identity of the reporter is entirely irrelevant in relation to the nature of the allegations of misconduct by the complainant.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; whistle-blower;
Judgment 4217
129th Session, 2020
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to provide her with the record of the investigation that ensued after she filed a harassment complaint against her supervisor, and the fact that she received no compensation for the moral harassment that she claims to have suffered.
Considerations 4 and 6
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that IFAD erred in refusing to grant the complainant’s request for a copy of the report established by the AUO at the end of the investigation in respect of the supervisor mentioned in her harassment complaint.
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member must, as a rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), 2700, under 6, 3214, under 24, or 3295, under 13). This implies, among other things, that an organisation must forward to a staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, for example, Judgments 3347, under 19 to 21, and 3831, under 17).
Of course, this obligation to disclose must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of an inquiry, particularly the witness statements gathered in the course of the inquiry. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ protection and freedom of expression (see, in particular, Judgments 3732, under 6, and 3640, under 19 and 20). Moreover, in this case the confidentiality of some information related to the investigation was expressly required by the provisions on this matter contained in section 4 of Annex I to the President’s Bulletin PB/2007/02 of 21 February 2007 concerning investigation processes.
Although it is true that IFAD produced a redacted copy of the investigation report as an annex to its surrejoinder, by refusing to provide the complainant with the report in question during the internal appeals procedure it nevertheless unlawfully deprived her of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation. In this case, 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. Indeed, the Tribunal’s case law recognises that, in some cases, the nondisclosure of evidence can be corrected when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgment 3117, under 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 2315, under 27, 3490, under 33, 3831, cited above, under 16, 17 and 29, or 3995, under 5).
[...]
[I]t [...] follows from the above that the decision [...] whereby IFAD refused to provide the complainant with the investigation report drawn up by the AUO, is unlawful and must, therefore, be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2315, 2700, 3214, 3295, 3347, 3490, 3640, 3732, 3831, 3995
Keywords:
confidential evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The complainant alleges, among other things, that her right to due process had been violated as a result of IFAD’s refusal to provide her with the investigation file containing, in addition to the investigation report itself, the minutes of the meetings held and the statements gathered. IFAD submits that it was not able to provide the file in question because the purpose of an investigation is not to share the findings with the person who lodged the complaint but to establish the facts. Nevertheless, it produced a redacted copy of the investigation report as an annex to its surrejoinder.
In view of the fact that it did so, the Tribunal considers that there is, in any event, no need to grant the request for disclosure of the other elements of the investigation file, which is not necessary to resolve the dispute.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4185
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation that the documentation provided by HRS to the Reports Committee was incomplete, the Tribunal observes from the submissions that HRS had removed annexes provided by the complainant which contained personal and private third-party information unrelated to the complainant’s performance of his duties, as well as unauthorized copies of official and confidential information. HRS, however, did attach the full list of the documents and offered to provide the documents themselves at the request of the Reports Committee, subject to the explicit authorization of the persons concerned. The Reports Committee agreed with the position of the Chief of HRS not to circulate all the files containing personal and private information as they could not be disclosed without the prior consent of the officials concerned. It noted that “[w]hile it was the official’s right to add his observations to the appraisal as foreseen by the Staff Regulations and procedures, its submission should also respect the Centre’s rules and procedures”. The Tribunal considers that the documents which were not forwarded were irrelevant to the question of the validity of the complainant’s performance appraisal report.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4181
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the failure by the ICC to complete his performance appraisal in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The ICC asks the Tribunal to protect the confidentiality of a document regarding another staff member which the complainant has disclosed in these proceedings without the consent of the staff member.
As this document, which is clearly marked “Staff in confidence”, was disclosed without the consent of the ICC and apparently without the consent of the staff member concerned, the Tribunal will protect its confidentiality and not refer to it.
Keywords:
confidential evidence;
Judgment 4167
128th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In order to justify his refusal to disclose the remaining part of the report, the Director General invoked reasons of confidentiality.
According to Article 5 of Office Notice No. 06/11, “[t]he Joint Committee for Disputes shall carry out its activities with complete independence. It shall gather any information it requires to formulate an opinion. The members of the Committee shall be required to respect the confidential nature of information disclosed to them.”
The investigation report obviously contained information that the Committee needed to have access to in order to form an opinion on the merits of the complainant’s internal complaint. Since the members of the said committee are obliged to respect the requirement of confidentiality of the information disclosed to them, as expressly specified in the aforementioned Article 5, the Director General could not invoke this requirement to justify his refusal to disclose the entire report to the Committee.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4033
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant primarily challenges his non-selection for a post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant requested the disclosure of documents including a copy of the selection report. The Tribunal notes that the complainant was provided with a copy of the regular and adapted selection procedures and a copy of the selection report, redacted to remove references to the other three shortlisted candidates. The complainant contends that the remaining documents were requested to inform him of the reasoning behind the decisions not to select him and to cancel the competition. The Tribunal finds that the complainant has been fully informed of the reasoning for the cancellation of the competition, i.e. procedural flaws, and as such, considering the subject of the present case, this request for documents was speculative.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4023
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
Preliminarily to examining the other grounds relied on by the complainant, however, the Tribunal will consider his request for the disclosure of the competition documents without any redactions. According to the case law, 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, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. It follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member. 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 (see Judgment 3272, considerations 14 and 15, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3077, consideration 4). [...]
The IAEA did not disclose to the complainant the evaluator’s notes from the testing process and the related candidates’ identification keys. It considered that, on the basis of Judgment 3272, the discussions of the members of the selection panel concerning the relative merits of the candidates should remain confidential. The Tribunal agrees with this last contention and further determines that the other documents were not inappropriately redacted. Therefore, it will not order the disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews in these proceedings. The request for disclosure is dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3272
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; selection board; selection procedure;
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.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The emails at issue were communications between Ms T., a Legal Officer, and the complainant’s Division Director, new to the FAO, in which the latter’s managerial concerns in dealing with the complainant were addressed. It is observed that Ms T.’s communications with the Division Director formed part of her official functions that included providing background information and advice to managers. The emails were marked confidential and in the circumstances were, particularly having regard to their subject-matter, private communications. Additionally, there was no publication or deliberate dissemination of the information. However, the filing of confidential personnel information in a publicly accessible email folder constituted a breach of the Organization’s duty to maintain the confidentiality of a staff member’s personnel information. The complainant, however, did not suffer any damage because of this breach. Leaving aside the fact that the complainant did not submit any evidence whatsoever let alone evidence establishing damage to his reputation or otherwise, he contributed to the possibility of a staff member accidently seeing the emails by not divulging the location of the emails when asked by the Administration. As soon as the emails were located, they were immediately removed. Taking this into account, there will be no award of moral damages for the breach.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty of care; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4003
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for damages related to her arrest and detention in Libya while on an official mission.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the reasons given in the [...] decision to reject the complainant’s claim for compensation were not supported by the evidence. Moreover, the Registrar relied on documents to which he refused to give the complainant access, while mischaracterizing the findings of those documents in a clear breach of her due process rights. He also misinformed the complainant that he had been ordered to destroy the consultant’s report and therefore could not give her a copy while knowing full well that the disclosure of the report to the complainant had already been approved. This constitutes an act of bad faith. The Registrar’s correspondence with the complainant shows that he repeatedly threatened her with charges of misconduct and possible disciplinary action unless she accepted the ICC’s offer during conciliation proceedings. This was an abuse of power and further evidence of bad faith.
Keywords:
abuse of power; bad faith; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that IFAD was wrong to refuse the complainant’s request for disclosure of the reports drawn up by the AUO at the end of the investigation into the conduct of the two supervisors targeted by his complaint.
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), 2700, under 6, 3214, under 24, or 3295, under 13). This implies, amongst other things, that an organisation must forward to a staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, for example, Judgments 3347, under 19 to 21, and 3831, under 17).
Of course, this obligation to disclose must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of an inquiry, particularly that of the witness statements gathered in the course of the inquiry. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ protection and freedom of expression (see, in particular, Judgments 3732, under 6, and 3640, under 19 and 20). Moreover, in this case the confidentiality of some information related to the investigation was expressly required by the [applicable] provisions on this matter [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 3214, 3295, 3347, 3640, 3732, 3831
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; harassment;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Prior to the oral hearing before the Disciplinary Committee, it was revealed that potential witnesses from the IU had been provided with a copy of the complainant’s rejoinder to the Disciplinary Committee. [...] [The EPO] does not seek to explain how the information came into the hands of the potential IU witnesses. It can reasonably be inferred that it happened as a result of the conduct of a member of staff of the EPO and for which the Organisation is responsible. But as noted by the Tribunal in Judgment 3284, consideration 28, how it happened is not of any great significance. What is significant is that the complainant’s confidentiality was not preserved. The complainant is entitled to moral damages assessed in the sum of 4,000 euros as the breach does not appear to be so egregious as the individuals to whom the material was sent were themselves bound to keep it confidential.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
confidential evidence; moral injury;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
