Disclosure of evidence (151,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Disclosure of evidence
Total judgments found: 210
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 5192
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for an investigation of his complaint of institutional harassment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“[T]he complaint is irreceivable, and, in any event, moot, and will be dismissed. In these circumstances, there is no need to address the complainant’s request for disclosure of documents.”
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 5183
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for the consequences of her occupational disease.
Consideration 13
Extract:
“The Tribunal also finds that the fact that the minority opinion was not appended did not prejudice the complainant, as the impugned decision, by endorsing the majority opinion, was based on independent and sufficient grounds. The Tribunal recalls its case law that, in some cases, it can be accepted that the non-disclosure of documents can be subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 15, and 3117, consideration 11). That is what occurred in this case, since a copy of the Appeals Committee’s minority opinion was forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the EPO’s reply, with the result that she was duly enabled to challenge its contents in her rejoinder.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3117, 4437
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 5180
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s invalidity reforms.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[R]egarding the “legal study”, the Tribunal has already held, in relation to a similar request made by the complainant in his twenty-second complaint, that such a request is “based on speculation that something might be found in the document to further his case” (see Judgment 5082, consideration 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5082
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 5179
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request to access his complete medical file and contests the validity of the internal appeals proceedings.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"[T]he principle of transparency as well as the individual’s right to access personal data mandate that staff members receive full and unfettered access to their medical files and obtain copies upon request (paying the associated costs as necessary). The only situation in which this rule does not apply is where specific circumstances temporarily prevent such access. However, a decision to temporarily deny staff members full access to their medical files must be fully justified and reasonable […]. The Tribunal also relevantly stated that in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of staff members to access their own medical files, this right encompasses viewing and obtaining copies of all records and notes in the file, and adding pertinent notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete, and that, so stated, the right to access one’s own medical file gives effect to the organisation’s duty of transparency […]."
"As a rule, access to medical files should be granted also with regard to medical documentation submitted by the staff concerned and, thus, already in possession of the staff member who is requesting access. Indeed, the aim of a request to access a medical file is not only to obtain documentation that the staff member concerned does not have, but also to check that the medical file contains all the relevant documents, including those submitted by the staff concerned."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; medical records; no provision; organisation's duties; personal file;
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 9
Extract:
“There are no rules that oblige an investigator to provide the subject of an investigation with witness statements during the course of the investigation itself. It is sufficient that the staff concerned be informed of the allegations during their interview and that they are provided with the content of the witness statements, together with the investigation report, at the conclusion of the investigation.”
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report; witness;
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 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 7
Extract:
“[The complainant asserts that he should have been provided with the transcripts of witness statements] […] [T]he complainant was provided with a copy of the IOS report […] upon receiving the decision on his harassment [complaint]. The [internal appeal body] correctly considered that the complainant had been provided with the material relied upon by the Organization in relation to the impugned decision and received all the relevant information. Indeed, the IOS report sufficiently summarizes the testimonial […] evidence in support of its findings.”
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 5145
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim that his injury was service-incurred.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Regarding the alleged failure to disclose some documentation, while it is noted that the complainant did not receive internal documentation, he was informed of the [Advisory Committee on Compensation Claims]’s recommendation. The Tribunal is satisfied that there was no breach of his rights, as it was sufficient to provide the complainant with the ACCC’s recommendation. The complainant received sufficient information to understand the reasoning for rejecting his claim and to exercise his right of appeal (see Judgment 4228, consideration 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4228
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to substantiate decision;
Judgment 5144
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
“Judgment 4005, consideration 6, […] states that ‘[a] fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party’, that the non-disclosure of evidence in the absence of a reason in law ‘constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness’ and 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 [her or] him’ (see Judgment 2700, consideration 6). The Appeals Committee indicated in its report that it conducted, at the FAO’s request, a review in camera of documents provided by the Organization, in order to reach its conclusions on the merits of the complainant’s appeal. In these circumstances, the non-disclosure of these documents to the complainant breached due process.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 4005
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeal;
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 5122
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.
Consideration 23
Extract:
[T]here was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary stage prior to the imposition of any sanction upon the complainant. Notably, Rule 10.2.03 of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, then in force, under the heading “Due process”, stated, in effect, that no disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a staff member unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as the right to seek assistance in his or her defence, as well as be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the Director-General issued the disciplinary measures against the complainant in the letter of 7 February 2020 to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report, as was required by paragraph 1.18 of Part IX of the Policy on Confidentiality. The complainant’s right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was thereby violated.
Keywords:
disciplinary charges; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; legal assistance; notification of allegations; patere legem; right; rules of the organisation;
Judgment 5120
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for disclosure of several documents which, according to her, establish the exact circumstances of her husband’s death.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; complaint dismissed; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 5082
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the increase in employees’ contribution rate to the healthcare insurance scheme.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he complainant requests the disclosure of an internal working document […] The request is [...] rejected as it is based on speculation that something might be found in the document to further his case (see, for example, Judgment 3419, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 5015
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request for additional medical leave days or compensation, her request for a similar position within another unit, and her request to adjust her position title.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant requests the Tribunal to order the disclosure of several documents related to the re-evaluation of her job position, […]. This disclosure request is rejected, as it will become clear below that these documents are not relevant for the adjudication of the complaint.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 5000
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the “deemed rejection” of his request for an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the Assistant Director-General at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva; the determination by the Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics that he had not suffered retaliation, and that he was not entitled to protection against retaliation; and WHO’s decision to accept his resignation which he claims constitutes constructive dismissal.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant requests the disclosure of documents concerning the review of his allegations of wrongdoing and any actions that were taken by the Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics (CRE) and the Director-General in this respect. This request has already been rejected by the President of the Tribunal, without prejudice for a different decision by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is satisfied, in light of WHO’s reply, that all relevant correspondence and decisions taken on this matter have already been shared with the complainant. The complainant also requests the disclosure of the travel authorization to Bergamo, Italy, issued to Mr G. during November 2020 and a copy of Mr G.’s report of activities. WHO has provided the Tribunal with a copy of Mr G.’s travel authorization which details Mr G.’s activities in Bergamo. Accordingly, the disclosure request is moot in this respect.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence;
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 4961
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of moral harassment, as well as what she regards as a decision to cancel her performance appraisal for 2019 and the decision to reinstate her former line manager and to make him responsible for conducting her annual appraisal for 2019.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal a en effet déjà considéré à de multiples reprises qu’en ne transmettant pas aux fonctionnaires les documents et avis produits devant l’organe de recours interne, les organisations ne respectaient pas le principe du contradictoire, car les fonctionnaires doivent avoir connaissance, fût-ce sous une forme expurgée pour des motifs de confidentialité, des éléments pertinents sur lesquels vont être prises les décisions les concernant (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 3380, considérant 12, 3264, au considérant 15, 2899, au considérant 23, et 2700, au considérant 6). Il en va d’autant plus ainsi en l’espèce que la requérante, par un courriel du 13 septembre 2020 adressé au Président et aux membres de la Commission paritaire des litiges, soit avant même que celle-ci ne finalise son avis, avait expressément demandé à recevoir l’intégralité des pièces fournies par la Direction des Ressources humaines ou tout autre service de l’Agence à la Commission dans le cadre de son recours interne.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264, 3380
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; internal appeal; right to information;
Judgment 4960
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, firstly, the decision not to promote her in the 2018 annual promotion exercise and, secondly, the refusal to consider a reclassification of her post. She also alleges gender discrimination.
Considerations 2-4
Extract:
Parmi les différents moyens que fait valoir la requérante, il en est un qui vise la régularité de la procédure suivie pour l’examen de son recours interne et qui, s’il devait être reconnu fondé, doit être considéré comme déterminant.
Selon la requérante, il y aurait eu violation du principe du contradictoire, ainsi que du principe d’égalité des armes, en ce que, dans le cadre de l’examen de sa réclamation, la Commission paritaire des litiges aurait bénéficié de la «communication de pièces et éléments» dont elle-même ignorait l’existence. En ayant communiqué à la Commission ces pièces et documents, Eurocontrol aurait donc pu faire valoir sa propre position sans que la requérante ne puisse y réagir.
Le Tribunal rappelle à cet égard que, selon sa jurisprudence constante fondée sur le principe du contradictoire, sur celui de l’égalité des armes ou encore sur le droit à une procédure régulière, un fonctionnaire est, en règle générale, en droit d’avoir connaissance de toutes les pièces sur lesquelles l’autorité compétente est appelée à se fonder pour prendre une décision le concernant (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4739, au considérant 10, et la jurisprudence citée, ainsi que les jugements 4217, au considérant 4, 4023, au considérant 5, 3995, au considérant 5, 3295, au considérant 13, 3214, au considérant 24, 2700, au considérant 6, ou 2229, au considérant 3 b)). Cela vaut tout autant concernant la communication de tels documents dans le cadre d’une procédure de recours interne (voir notamment les jugements 4739, au considérant 12, et 3995, au considérant 5).
[…]
L’absence de communication préalable à la requérante de ces documents est d’autant moins admissible que le conseil de cette dernière, par une lettre du 12 juin 2019 adressée au Directeur général de l’époque et à la chef de l’Unité des Ressources humaines et services, avait expressément demandé que lui soit également communiqué «tout élément, autre que la réclamation et [les] pièces jointes à celle-ci, que les services de l’Agence entend[ai]ent produire devant la [Commission], [...] dans des délais compatibles avec un éventuel droit de réponse de la [requérante] afin de garantir un avis impartial et objectif dans le respect du principe du contradictoire et pour que la [requérante] puisse avoir connaissance de toutes les pièces sur lesquelles l’Agence s’apprêt[ait] à fonder sa décision à son encontre».
Il s’ensuit que la décision finale du Directeur général du 28 novembre 2019 portant rejet de la réclamation introduite par la requérante le 22 janvier 2019 est entachée d’un vice fondamental constitutif d’une violation tant du principe du contradictoire que de celui de l’égalité des armes. La requérante n’a en effet pas bénéficié des garanties d’une procédure régulière dans le cadre de l’examen de son recours interne.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 3214, 3295, 3995, 4023, 4217, 4739
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; internal appeal; right to information;
Judgment 4954
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Considerations 5-7
Extract:
The IAEA’s failure to disclose to the complainant the OIOS’s investigation report was central to the case. […] [T]he Tribunal’s case law obliges an organisation to communicate to the official who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation (see, for example, Judgment 3347, considerations 19 and 20) […] Moreover, the Tribunal has clarified in its 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 4547, consideration 10) […] In the present case, the complainant requested a copy of the OIOS investigation report himself and through his counsel. This was in the context of him having launched his complaint of harassment after he left the employment of the IAEA but in which he sought significant amount of compensation for the harassment he alleged. These requests were rejected by the IAEA on the grounds of confidentiality and aimed at protecting the interests of third parties. Considering that the Director General based the impugned decision on the OIOS assessment report, but failed to provide the complainant with this report, even in a redacted form, the IAEA unlawfully deprived the complainant of the opportunity to review the report and the witness statements gathered, provide comments, and challenge the findings of the investigation, which is essential to the complainant’s due process rights. The limited communication offered to explain to him in more detail the OIOS findings does not meet the disclosure requirement set by the Tribunal’s case law. It follows that the impugned decision, tainted by procedural flaws, must be set aside […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347, 4547
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s request[s] to be provided with copies of all documents generated or received by OIOS in connection with his request for an investigation of 30 November 2019, all documents relied on by OIOS to conclude that the reported conduct did not constitute misconduct, and all documents relied on by the Director General to conclude that the complainant’s harassment complaint was unsubstantiated “on the preponderance of evidence”. The complainant clarified that by the word “documents” he meant “any and all notes, e-mails, witness transcripts or recordings, records, memos, or any other documentation in written or electronic form”. Given the broad scope of this request, it can only be characterized as an impermissible “fishing expedition” and is rejected (see, for example, Judgment 4086, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4086
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4953
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant further refers to the Tribunal’s statement in considerations 19 and 20 of Judgment 3586 that “all relevant documents should have been disclosed [by the Organization in question] to [the internal appeal body], without its request, to enable it to thoroughly investigate the central question: whether funds were or would have been available or were ‘expected to be assured’ at the material time to fund the extension” of the contract of the complainant in that case. The complainant states that she provided evidence to the JAB that as of 12 June 2020, there was a balance of over 2 million euros in the IAEA’s budget to fund the HR and non-HR functions in her department and the latter should have produced to the JAB all the documents related to the allotment transfer in June 2020 and whether it was done in line with its Financial Regulations and Rules in order to determine, in effect, whether funds were available to continue to fund her position. She submits that the IAEA’s failure to produce the documents to her and to the JAB constituted a breach of due process. She cites the Tribunal statement in consideration 17 of Judgment 3586 that the organization in that case “breached due process by not disclosing all of the agreements and related information, which could have assisted the [internal appeal body] to have made a properly informed determination whether financial constraint was a valid reason for not extending [her] contract”. […] The foregoing submissions show that the complainant has failed to appreciate, first, that in Judgment 3586, the question of whether funds were “expected to be assured” was an enquiry dictated by a specific provision (Paragraph III.5.12 of WHO’s e-Manual) which is not applicable in the present case […]. In the second place, Judgment 3586 was not concerned with the non-extension of an appointment to a position funded by extra-budgetary contribution by a donor government wherein the IAEA was under no obligation to allocate funds from its regular budget to fund the position when the donor government withdrew its funding for it in the terms stated in consideration 9 of this judgment, which the Tribunal accepts, as did the JAB. […] Stated in another way, the essential question regarding this aspect of the third ground is not (as the complainant suggests) whether as of [the time of the non-renewal] sufficient funds remained in the Department’s budget to cover the complainant’s position […] The question is whether funds had been allocated by the donor government to continue to fund the complainant’s extra-budgetary post when its term expired […], and they were not. There was therefore no basis for the IAEA to disclose information concerning the question whether funds were or could have been made available from the IAEA’s regular budget or were ”expected to be assured” to continue to fund the complainant’s position. It was therefore unnecessary for the JAB to order the disclosure of the documents she seeks or for the IAEA to share them with the JAB without its request.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; budgetary reasons; disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeals body; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4917
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
In her third plea, the complainant argues that UNIDO’s refusal to share with the JAB the final investigation report into her retaliation complaint impeded the latter’s proper evaluation of her allegations of retaliation. A related argument advanced by the complainant is that she “should have been given the opportunity to comment on documents that would be considered and relied upon by [UNIDO] in the [non-renewal] decision”. UNIDO contends that the plea of breach of due process rights has no merit because the investigation report was completed several months after the [non-renewal] decision of 29 April 2021 and “played no role” in such decision. […] while it is true that the case law of the Tribunal states that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases its decision against her or him, in the present case the non-renewal decision dated 29 April 2021 was not based on the content of the investigation report, which was completed several months later, in October 2021. The impugned decision did not rely on the content of the investigation report either. The complainant’s third plea is therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant’s request for disclosure of the investigation report concerning her allegations of procurement irregularities against Mr S. is unrelated to the subject matter of the present complaint and is rejected.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
