Due process (187,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Due process
Total judgments found: 215
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 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 4
Extract:
“[B]efore adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff concerned the opportunity to defend themselves in adversarial proceedings (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, and 3875, consideration 3). The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgments 4832, consideration 28, 4343, consideration 13, and 2496, consideration 7). Before disciplinary proceedings are undertaken, the investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4697, consideration 12, 4491, consideration 19, and 4011, consideration 9). This implies that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence (see Judgment 5003, consideration 5).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4011, 4343, 4491, 4697, 4832, 5003
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence during investigation; investigation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
“Due process mandates that the health condition of the staff concerned be taken into consideration, striking a balance between the right to defense of the staff concerned and the need for an expeditious investigation in cases of harassment (see Judgments 4065, considerations 7 and 8, and 4064, considerations 8 to 10). In Judgment 4064, considerations 8 and 9, the Tribunal held that, in the absence of statutory rules or proven practice providing guidance on how the requirement of due process was to be fulfilled where a staff member who is accused of harassment is on certified sick leave, and given the duty of an organization to investigate harassment complaints, it was reasonable that it could ask a staff member who was on sick leave to comment upon an investigation report if doing so would not have exacerbated the illness which occasioned the grant of sick leave and if the staff concerned was fit to do so […] In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that IOS struck a proper balance, considering that the complainant’s interview was accommodated to her needs, and extended over several days. IOS made several attempts to afford the complainant the opportunity to answer questions in writing. Once it became clear that her medical condition prevented her from even responding in writing, IOS opted to limit the scope of the investigation to ‘those allegations which IOS was able to fully discuss with, seek comments from, and present relevant evidence to [the complainant]’.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4064, 4065
Keywords:
due process; duty of care; harassment; investigation; investigation report; sick leave;
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 5149
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 issue him with a written reprimand.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal has consistently stated, as it recalled in consideration 5 of Judgment 5003, for example, that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning the Tribunal’s limited power of review and not to that of an internal appeal body. This, according to the Tribunal, is because internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged, and that, ordinarily, the task of internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made as its power extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions, which restriction is not provided for in the FAO’s rules. This error of law by the Appeals Committee is sufficient basis for setting aside the impugned decision without it being necessary to consider other grounds.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
advisory body; case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; due process; internal appeals body; judicial review;
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;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The violation of the complainant’s due process in the disciplinary process was a manifest error, which permits the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision, as well as the initial decision contained in the letter of 7 February 2020, without it being necessary to rule on any other plea the complainant proffers. Inasmuch as the complainant’s rights to due process were violated, he is entitled to moral damages. For this, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will award him 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; judicial review; manifest error; moral damages; patere legem; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Consideration 19
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law recognizes that an accusation of harassment requires an international organization to investigate the matter in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made […]. This necessitates, amongst others, that the person accused be kept informed of the content of statements and testimonies gathered as part of the relevant investigation to challenge them if necessary. The Tribunal’s case law accepts, however, that there may be situations in which an organization can, in some circumstances, refuse to provide the subject of disciplinary proceedings with the transcripts of witness interviews without committing a breach of due process […]. The objective is to ensure that the person accused is sufficiently informed of the evidence on which the administration intends to base its decision and that he has an effective opportunity to test that evidence and to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct.”
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; harassment; investigation; witness;
Considerations 21-22
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal relevantly observed in Judgment 4914, consideration 13, that a complainant was “mistaken to suggest that he was entitled to participate in the investigation in such a way that he could have, for instance, questioned or cross-examined himself, or through counsel, the persons that the investigator met at that stage of the process. The Tribunal’s case law does not support such an extensive right to an adversarial procedure at the investigation stage of the process as the complainant appears to be suggesting […]”.”
“[E]stablished precedents of the Tribunal […] confirm that an investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and that the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt […], which entails that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence […]. In the instant case, the investigation report indicates that exculpatory evidence identified by the complainant was indeed duly and sufficiently considered.
[…] Even though the complainant kept putting forward additional names of colleagues he thought would express positive opinions about their personal collaborations with him, at some point, having conducted the number of interviews that were done, the investigator could reasonably consider that she had gathered sufficient and adequate information on the case. In the context of what transpires from the record, to suggest, as the complainant does, that not all potential exculpatory witnesses were interviewed, or that some of these witness statements were ignored, remains highly insufficient to support an assertion that it amounted to a breach of his due process rights.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4914
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty of care; investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 5113
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
“[I]n terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. […] ‘[…] ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’” […] in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.”
The Tribunal finds that the organisation breached its duty of care in its treatment of the complainant. […]
There is no evidence that the concerns regarding the complainant’s performance were brought to his attention at any time prior to […], when the completed PAR was forwarded to him. The decision not to renew his appointment was taken just three weeks later. As a result, he was not afforded an opportunity to address or rectify the alleged shortcomings in his performance, nor was he granted a reasonable period within which any improvement could have been expected to occur.”
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“[D]ecisions adversely affecting a staff member can constitute a hidden disciplinary sanction and, if made without following due process requirements, may be unlawful […]. The impugned decision, which conflated budgetary and misconduct considerations and thereby deprived the complainant of the guarantees inherent in a disciplinary process, constitutes a hidden disciplinary measure adopted without due process. Consequently, both the impugned decision and the decision not to renew the complainant’s contract must be set aside […].”
Keywords:
due process; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct;
Judgment 5099
141st Session, 2026
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract for abandonment of post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation of conflict of interest and lack of impartiality in the decision-making, the Tribunal has established through its case law that an allegation of conflict of interest must be substantiated through concrete evidence demonstrating actual prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 4891, consideration 11). A conflict arises only where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality. The complainant’s reliance on mere suspicion or conjecture fails to meet this evidentiary threshold. The Executive Director’s endorsement of the Appeal Board’s recommendation does not, in itself, create objective partiality. The fact that the Executive Director rendered both the initial decision and the final decision is unexceptionable given that it is contemplated in the Employee Handbook (see, for similar examples, Judgments 4815, consideration 7, 4540, consideration 4, and 3352, consideration 6). The complainant has not discharged her burden of proving conflict of interest, lack of independence, or violation of due process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3352, 4540, 4815, 4891
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest; due process; evidence;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 18
Extract:
“[C]ross-examination of witnesses is not considered by the Tribunal’s case law to be a mandatory requirement for the lawfulness of the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings […].”
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; investigation; witness;
Judgment 5026
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct with one month’s notice and the payment of an indemnity, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; delay; disciplinary measure; due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report; investigative body;
Consideration 19
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that in the instant case, WHO clearly took an excessive and unreasonable amount of time to initiate, perform and conclude the investigation, in violation of its own statutory requirements and in disregard of its general duty not to cause its staff members undue hardship.
This excessive delay was much more than a mere procedural flaw under the circumstances. It adversely impacted the complainant’s right to a full answer and defence, and it prejudiced the integrity of the investigation. Most of the evidence was difficult to obtain as a result, and the record indicates that it indeed led IOS to eventually give up on collecting it. By the time he was informed of the investigation, some three years after the alleged incident, it was too late for the complainant to find additional evidence or identify other potential witnesses. This ended up breaching the complainant’s right to due process.
Keywords:
delay; due process; investigation; investigation report; investigative body;
Judgment 5012
140th Session, 2025
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the GCF’s decision not to confirm him in his post and to terminate his appointment at the end of his extended probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; due process; performance; performance evaluation; probationary period; termination of employment;
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 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, it is sufficient that the accused staff member be informed of the allegations at the beginning of the interview […].
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation;
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 5003
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The [Global Board of Appeal] […] misconceived its role as, in its 25 October 2021 recommendations, it refused to reweigh the evidence and to assess the facts. It stated:
“According to [...] Judgment 3593, consideration 12, it is not the role of an appellate body to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. Owing deference to the investigative body, the appellate body should only interfere in the case of manifest error. The Panel was satisfied that the IOS [r]eport discussed, under each incident, all the evidence received and found, including the [complainant]’s answers to the investigator’s questions. The Panel was of the view that an on-site visit by IOS might have been advisable.
The Tribunal’s precedent quoted by the GBA concerns the role of the Tribunal, not the role of the internal appeal bodies. On the contrary, with regard to the role of the internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning its limited power of review. Internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged (see, for example, Judgments 3161, consideration 5, and 3077, consideration 3). Indeed, ordinarily, the task of the internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made (see Judgment 3161, consideration 6). The power of internal appeal bodies extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions (see Judgment 3318, consideration 5). The internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition, their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation, and the broad investigative powers granted to them. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, they gather the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof (see Judgment 3423, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3161, 3318, 3423, 3593
Keywords:
advisory body; due process; internal appeals body;
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;
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 4915
139th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the BIPM’s decision to close his harassment complaint and to reject his requests for compensation.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for material and moral damages may only be allowed, if the complainant prevails on his substantive pleas. Inasmuch as the present complaint succeeds on procedural grounds and the case will be remitted to the BIPM, his claim for material and moral damages remains in abeyance. At this stage, the complainant is entitled to moral damages only for the breach of due process stemming from the conflict of interest. The Tribunal deems it just and fair to award him 15,000 euros in moral damages in this respect.
Keywords:
breach; case sent back to organisation; conflict of interest; due process; material damages; moral damages;
Judgment 4914
139th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close the investigation concluding that certain allegations against him were substantiated and to postpone the initiation of disciplinary proceedings until such time as he might be in a position to participate in such proceedings.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that, in the circumstances relevant to the complainant’s situation, the Global Fund had to reconcile many conflicting obligations.
On the one hand, it was bound to complete the investigation process within ninety days under the applicable provisions of the Employee Handbook, and, from an operational standpoint, the Tribunal accepts that it could not retain indefinitely the service of the appointed external investigator but had to close the matter at some point. In other words, the Global Fund could not realistically put on hold an investigation of this nature indefinitely.
On the other hand, it also had a duty of care towards the staff members who had reported the allegations of misconduct raised against the complainant to carry out the investigation diligently (see, in this respect, Judgment 4344, consideration 3).
Finally, the Global Fund had a duty to safeguard the complainant’s due process rights during the investigation as well as a duty of care towards him. A review of the record indicates that it did take many steps to fulfil these duties. In this regard, it duly notified the complainant of the initiation of the investigation process, it granted an exceptional extension of the investigation process in view of the complainant’s absence for health reasons, it proposed alternative ways of meeting more easily with the investigator, and it afforded opportunities to the complainant and his counsel to comment on the draft report as well as additional time to comment on the report. In addition, when the Administration informed the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, it made it very clear that it was to be noted that the outcome had not been discussed with him, as he had not participated in the investigation. It had indeed been indicated before that no adverse inferences would be drawn from his lack of participation in the investigation due to his health condition.
In notifying the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, the Global Fund furthermore emphasized that any future assessment of the case for potential disciplinary review would be postponed until the complainant was in a position to participate in the proceedings. As such, it is undisputed that before the closing of any disciplinary proceeding, the complainant would have been able to submit his comments, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Annex XII of the Employee Handbook.
In the Tribunal’s assessment, bearing in mind that adversarial proceedings would still have been ensured before the issuing of a final decision in a disciplinary process, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 4313, consideration 6), the Global Fund managed to maintain a reasonable and proper balance between conflicting requirements and it did not violate the due process rights of the complainant in acting as it did, or its duty of care.
At this juncture, the Tribunal observes that the complainant is mistaken to suggest that he was entitled to participate in the investigation in such a way that he could have, for instance, questioned or cross-examined himself, or through counsel, the persons that the investigator met at that stage of the process. The Tribunal’s case law does not support such an extensive right to an adversarial procedure at the investigation stage of the process as the complainant appears to be suggesting (see, for example, Judgment 4770, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4313, 4344, 4770
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty of care; investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; due process; final decision; investigation; receivability of the complaint; right to be heard; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4862
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to provide her with an investigation report on her sexual harassment complaint at the end of the investigation and before a decision was taken on her harassment complaint.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The non-disclosure of the investigation report prior to the adoption of the decision on the harassment complaint does not infringe the principle of due process. According to the Tribunal’s case law, staff members, as a rule, have the right to access all evidence upon which a decision affecting their interests is based (see Judgment 4217, consideration 4). This implies that: (i) a decision is adopted; (ii) this decision negatively affects the staff member; (iii) the decision relies on the evidence of which the staff member demands the disclosure. Such requirements do not occur in the present case, as no decision on the harassment complaint had been adopted at the time the disclosure of the report was requested.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4217
Keywords:
due process; investigation report;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
