Right to privacy (724,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right to privacy
Total judgments found: 4

• Judgment 5152

  
  141st Session, 2026
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks a review of the measures taken following the Organization’s acknowledgment of the violation of its duty of care towards him and asks that it be ordered to publish a press release to clear his reputation and to pay him additional amounts in moral damages and legal “fees”.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  The Tribunal case law has it that, as a general rule, the Tribunal does not have the competence to issue injunctions against international organisations (see, for example, Judgments 5057, consideration 22 (order to institute disciplinary proceedings), 5045, consideration 19 (order the issuance of a directive), 4802, consideration 2 (order to publish an internal decision), 4065, consideration 9 (order to issue an official announcement to clear reputation), 4039, consideration 17 (order to provide apologies), 3506, consideration 18 (order to instruct an organisation to do something), and 2626, consideration 13 (order to sanction staff members)). When addressing this issue recognizing that its competence in this regard is limited, the Tribunal indeed refers to the expression of not having the competence to “order injunctions of this kind” (see, for example, Judgment 5045, consideration 19). But in a situation like this one, where the context involves a clear defamatory statement circulated by an international organization and affecting a complainant’s honour and reputation, the Tribunal is prepared to proceed on the basis of the approach in Judgment 2720, considerations 17 and 18.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2626, 2720, 3506, 4039, 4065, 4802, 5045, 5057
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [T]he email with the “talking points” circulated […] left little doubt that the UNAIDS staff member to whom it referred was indeed the complainant. As well, by alluding to the fact that the Organization had a zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment, it was clearly publicly linking the complainant to this kind of behaviour. Secondly, the record shows that the Organization made similar references and allusions in its press release […]. Later on, […] in her interview to a major press agency, a UNAIDS spokesperson referred to the complainant having been placed on administrative leave over sexual harassment allegations when, in fact, the complainant had been placed on special leave due to general allegations of misconduct pursuant to the notification that he had received from the Organization […]. The Tribunal agrees with the complainant’s assertion that the circulation of this incorrect, misleading but nevertheless detailed information, both internally and to the press, was inappropriate and in violation of the Organization’s duty to refrain from conduct that may harm the dignity and reputation of its officials. […]. These communications were a serious affront to the complainant’s name, professional reputation and dignity, reflecting adversely on his person while infringing on his privacy.

  Keywords:

  duty of care; duty of discretion; organisation's duties; professional injury; professional reputation; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  [S]till on the violation of the Organization’s duty of care, the complainant further argues that UNAIDS failed to take the necessary concrete measures to ensure a prompt correction of the inaccurate public statements made internally and to the press. On this point, the Tribunal observes that even though the GBA report identified a fault of UNAIDS and that the latter acknowledged its violation of its duty of care in the impugned decision, the actions taken to remedy the harm done, considering the nature of its communications and press release, were insufficient and less than what would have been expected from an international organisation. Having affected, albeit not intentionally or maliciously, the complainant’s reputation and image through what were incomplete and misleading public statements, it was reasonable to expect the Organization to redress the situation through similar public means, which it refused to do. The Tribunal considers that UNAIDS’ mere removal of the inaccurate press release from its website and its action to correct its spokesperson’s inaccurate characterization of the nature of the complainant’s leave to the press agency were insufficient in this respect. More required to be done in that context.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; organisation's duties; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
  

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The press release issued by UNAIDS on 14 September 2018 caused prejudice to the complainant’s honour and reputation. Similarly to the situation that prevailed in Judgment 2720, the Organization was, pursuant to its duty of care, under a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the injury it caused to the complainant. The Tribunal has the authority to order specific performance of such an obligation, bearing in mind that the nature of the specific performance that is to be ordered must be clear and unambiguous so that it does not lead to further disputes between the parties. […] The order of the Tribunal in this respect should rather be kept as simple as possible. […]. This, in the Tribunal’s view, is the proper way to vindicate the harm caused to the reputation of the complainant because of the Organization’s violations of its duty of care towards him. Given that press statements publicly accessible on mediums like the Internet end up remaining available for very long periods of time after their initial publication, issuing such an order in the circumstances remains appropriate even though the relevant events go back many years.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2720
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3881

  
  124th Session, 2017
  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 sick leave after his dismissal for misconduct.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant’s confidentiality was breached when, without his consent, the certificate [...], which mentioned the nature of his incapacity, was disclosed to the Appeals Committee with the FAO’s reply in the internal appeal proceedings. The information it contained was then specifically repeated in the Appeals Committee’s report to the Director-General. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the FAO breached the complainant’s right to privacy when confidential medical information concerning the nature of his incapacity was passed to third parties. This aspect of the complaint is therefore well founded and the complainant will be awarded [...] moral damages in the circumstances.

  Keywords:

  confidential evidence; medical certificate; moral injury; right to privacy;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2741

  
  105th Session, 2008
  International Olive Oil Council
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The complainant asserts that he was deliberately excluded from the decisive initial phase of the investigation, which made it impossible for him to prevent any tampering with the equipment seized in his office. He argues that because the search of his computer equipment was carried out in secrecy, his “worker’s dignity” and his right to privacy were unjustifiably violated which, in his view, renders the evidence thus gathered inadmissible. […] Any worker has the right to be protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference by an employer in his or her private life or correspondence. Any interference in a worker’s private life ordered exceptionally by an employer to safeguard the normal and secure functioning of a company’s information technology system must be undertaken in the presence of the worker or his or her representatives. If that is not possible owing to the urgency of the situation, all reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure that the accessing of the worker’s personal files remains within the bounds of what is required for company security, that any unjustified disclosure or dissemination of personal information is avoided and that any tampering with the computer equipment is prevented. In addition, the person concerned must be informed without delay of the investigations conducted and given all reasonable means to assert his or her rights. These basic principles are applicable to employment relations within international organisations.

  Keywords:

  inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to privacy;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2271

  
  96th Session, 2004
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "The confidential nature of medical information concerning the state of health of staff members constitutes a key element of their right to privacy. It is no doubt both necessary and legitimate for an international organisation, like any employer, to investigate requests for sick leave, to examine medical certificates and to have the health of its staff members checked by appropriate means. Such information should be gathered and processed on a fully confidential basis, however, and should never be communicated to third parties without the explicit consent of the person concerned. [...] The fact that the members of the Appeals Committee are bound by an obligation of confidentiality does not mean that information covered by medical secrecy can be disclosed to them without the consent of the persons concerned."

  Keywords:

  communication to third party; confidential evidence; internal appeals body; lack of consent; medical certificate; medical records; organisation's duties; right to privacy; sick leave;