|
|
 |
|
|
Right to be heard (747,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Right to be heard
Total judgments found: 55
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5169
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal a déjà précisé, ainsi qu’il l’a rappelé dans les jugements 5164, au considérant 10, 5165, au considérant 9, et 4593, au considérant 7, que le principe général protégeant le droit d’être entendu d’un fonctionnaire ne saurait s’appliquer à une décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4283, au considérant 6). La même jurisprudence trouve à s’appliquer dans l’hypothèse où, comme en l’espèce, la décision litigieuse n’est que la conséquence pure et simple d’une telle décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4593, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4283, 4593, 5164, 5165
Keywords:
general decision; right to be heard;
Judgment 5164
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw his “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal a d’abord déjà précisé que le principe général protégeant le droit d’un fonctionnaire d’être entendu ne saurait s’appliquer à une décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4283, au considérant 6). La même jurisprudence trouve à s’appliquer dans l’hypothèse où, comme en l’espèce, la décision litigieuse n’est que la conséquence pure et simple d’une telle décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4593, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4283, 4593
Keywords:
general decision; right to be heard;
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 12
Extract:
“The Tribunal notes that its case law […] concerning an investigator’s duty to gather exculpatory evidence, including interviewing witnesses listed by the accused person, was primarily established in cases where the disciplinary charges were solely based on witness statements and the accused person questioned the credibility of the witnesses (see, specifically, Judgment 5003, consideration 5). […] [In the present case] the charges of misconduct are supported not only by witness statements, but also by decisive and conclusive documentary evidence, consisting of emails sent by the complainant to other staff members and external third parties. Therefore, the hearing of the witnesses listed by the complainant could not have disproven the finding of misconduct already evident from the complainant’s emails.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence during investigation; investigation; right to be heard; witness;
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.
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 5031
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la réduction du montant de son indemnité forfaitaire de dactylographie calculée proportionnellement à la réduction de son temps de travail.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[L]a requérante invoque une violation de son droit d’être entendue avant que la décision attaquée ait été prise.
Mais le Tribunal estime que, dans la mesure où la réduction du temps de travail de l’intéressée avait pour conséquence automatique une diminution proportionnelle du montant de son indemnité de dactylographie, le droit d’être entendu avant que n’intervienne la décision du 15 décembre 2022 ne trouvait pas à s’appliquer (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4591, au considérant 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4591
Keywords:
allowance; right to be heard;
Judgment 5020
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de résilier son engagement par suite de la suppression de son poste.
Considerations 6-7 and 12
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal relève que le droit d’être entendu constitue une protection et une garantie fondamentale pour les fonctionnaires dont la résiliation d’engagement est envisagée. Au vu des graves conséquences que comporte une telle mesure, ce droit leur permet d’exposer pleinement leur point de vue afin de s’assurer, avant que la décision envisagée ne soit prise, que tous les éléments pertinents ont bien été pris en compte et analysés par l’organisation et que cette dernière a fait tout son possible pour éviter d’avoir à prendre une mesure de cette nature à leur encontre. La charge de la preuve de ces efforts incombe à l’organisation concernée.
[…] Or, pour que son droit d’être entendu soit respecté, il faut que le fonctionnaire soit clairement informé de l’intention du chef exécutif de résilier son engagement et qu’il soit appelé à faire valoir son point de vue. Pour ce faire, le fonctionnaire doit être informé, avant que la décision ne soit prise, non seulement de l’intention de résilier son engagement mais également des motifs de cette intention de résiliation, comme, par exemple, l’issue infructueuse d’une procédure de réaffectation.
Dans de tels cas, le fonctionnaire peut faire valoir ses observations avant que ne soit prise une décision affectant gravement ses intérêts. Il s’agit alors de traiter l’intéressé équitablement, avec respect, et de lui donner une réelle opportunité de défendre ses intérêts en prévenant l’adoption de la décision litigieuse ou en influant, si possible, sur la teneur de celle-ci, le moment où elle sera prise ou ses modalités d’exécution.
[…]
La défenderesse soutient certes dans ses écritures que le droit d’être entendue de l’intéressée aurait été respecté, d’abord, en ce qu’elle aurait été informée de l’intention du Secrétaire général de résilier son engagement dans la décision de suppression de son poste […] et, ensuite, en ce qu’elle aurait pu faire valoir son point de vue dans [s]a demande de réexamen et [son] recours interne […].
Mais cet argument ne peut qu’être écarté puisque, sur le premier aspect, la simple circonstance d’informer l’intéressée d’une possibilité de résiliation à la fin d’un processus de réaffectation demeure fort loin d’une opportunité d’être entendue sur la décision effective de résilier son engagement et sur les motifs qui la sous-tendent. Quant au deuxième aspect de cet argument, il témoigne d’une confusion erronée entre le droit d’être entendu préalablement à l’imposition de la mesure de résiliation contestée et celui d’être entendu dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne s’y rattachant une fois la décision litigieuse prise, soit deux notions distinctes. C’est la première qui est en jeu en l’espèce, et non la seconde.
Keywords:
right to be heard; termination of employment;
Judgment 5019
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de supprimer son poste.
Consideration 7
Extract:
S’agissant […] de son droit d’être entendue avant que la décision de suppression de son poste ne soit prise, il ressort du dossier que, contrairement à ce que la défenderesse s’était du reste elle-même engagée à faire, l’intéressée n’a pas été consultée de quelque manière que ce soit avant [la prise de cette] décision […].
Or, en vertu d’une jurisprudence bien établie du Tribunal, l’Organisation était tenue de consulter la requérante quant à la suppression envisagée de son poste afin de lui permettre de faire valoir son point de vue avant qu’une décision à cet effet ne soit prise (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4819, au considérant 7, 4622, au considérant 10, 3124, au considérant 3, 1817, au considérant 7, et 1484, au considérant 8).
L’argumentation de la défenderesse selon laquelle le processus de réorganisation dans lequel s’inscrivait la suppression de poste était justifié et souhaitable est inopérante au regard du devoir d’Interpol de respecter ce droit de la requérante.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817, 3124, 4622, 4819
Keywords:
abolition of post; right to be heard;
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:
Firm and constant precedents of the Tribunal have it that, before adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff member concerned the opportunity to defend herself or himself in adversarial proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3875, consideration 3). Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if she or he so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. 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, for example, Judgments 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 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence. In the present case, the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not even dismissed with a reason, it was ignored completely. […]
It is true that, pursuant to WHO e-Manual, section III.12.4.530, the hearing of witnesses is at the discretion of the GBA, but the GBA must give reasons for its refusal to grant the hearing of witnesses, whilst in the present case the complainant’s request was merely ignored with no grounds at all.
The failure, during the entire process of investigating and evaluating the position of the complainant, to consider hearing the witnesses listed by the complainant is, in the Tribunal’s view, a serious flaw in the process, as some of the charges against the complainant are based only on the report and on the interview of the alleged victim, and one of the charges (namely the one referring to unwelcome hugging) is based on the interview of Mr W. In conclusion, the pleas are well founded to the extent that the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not considered. It cannot be established, at this stage, what would have been the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings if the witnesses listed by the complainant had been interviewed, namely, it cannot be established whether the findings would have warranted, in any event, the most severe sanction or a less severe sanction. Moreover, the Tribunal, in cases where it found that some of the charges were not proven “beyond reasonable doubt” due to the failure to consider exculpatory evidence, annulled the disciplinary decision in its entirety (see Judgments 4456, considerations 9, 16 and 17, 4453, consideration 15, and 4362, considerations 17 and 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4343, 4362, 4453, 4456, 4697, 4832
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence during investigation; investigation; right to be heard;
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 12
Extract:
Ainsi que l’a déjà considéré le Tribunal, notamment dans son jugement 4111, au considérant 3, le refus, sans justification valable par les enquêteurs concernés, d’entendre des témoins au sujet des allégations du requérant concernant des faits de harcèlement viole les règles d’une procédure régulière.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4111
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; inquiry; right to be heard;
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal observe que la requérante n’a pas eu connaissance de l’ensemble des comptes rendus d’entretien des personnes qui ont été entendues par les enquêteurs ou, à tout le moins, de la teneur de ceux-ci. S’il a bien été fait état dans le rapport d’enquête de la teneur des déclarations des quatre membres du personnel expressément visés dans la plainte en tant qu’auteurs présumés des faits de harcèlement, il apparaît que les autres témoignages recueillis par les enquêteurs n’ont, à aucun stade de la procédure interne, été portés à la connaissance de la requérante, à tout le moins dans leur teneur et, le cas échéant, sous une forme expurgée. Quatre de ces témoignages n’ont en effet été communiqués à l’intéressée qu’au moment du dépôt de la duplique, tandis que l’ensemble de ceux-ci ne l’ont été que sur invitation expresse du Président du Tribunal.
Cela va à l’encontre de la jurisprudence du Tribunal selon laquelle, en vertu du principe du contradictoire et du droit à une procédure régulière, l’auteur d’une plainte pour harcèlement doit, avant même la fin de l’enquête, être informé à tout le moins de la teneur des déclarations des personnes accusées et des témoignages recueillis dans le cadre de l’enquête afin de pouvoir éventuellement les contester (voir, à cet égard, les jugements 4900, au considérant 43, 4781, au considérant 9, 3065, aux considérants 5 à 8, et 2973, au considérant 14). […]
[A]insi que le reconnaît la défenderesse elle-même dans son mémoire en réponse, le rapport d’enquête du 19 février 2020 n’a pas été communiqué à la requérante en temps utile de sorte qu’elle puisse s’en servir, notamment, dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne. En effet, seul un extrait des conclusions du rapport était joint à la lettre du 19 mars 2020 par laquelle l’ancien Directeur général informait l’intéressée du classement de sa plainte. En dépit de ses multiples demandes, notamment dans la lettre de son conseil du 3 avril 2020, la requérante n’a pas reçu de copie de ce rapport, pas même sous une forme expurgée.
Or le Tribunal a déjà eu l’occasion de juger qu’une communication aussi limitée des conclusions d’un rapport d’enquête ne satisfait pas aux exigences établies par la jurisprudence en la matière, dès lors que la requérante n’a ainsi pas été en mesure de vérifier, y compris au stade de la procédure de recours interne, la teneur des déclarations des témoins, ni le sérieux de l’enquête menée (comparer, notamment, avec le jugement 4820, au considérant 10). À ce sujet, il convient de rappeler que, selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, 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, 3995, au considérant 5, 3295, au considérant 13, 3214, au considérant 24, 2700, au considérant 6, ou 2229, au considérant 3 b)). Il en découle, en particulier, qu’une organisation est tenue de communiquer au fonctionnaire ayant déposé une plainte pour harcèlement le rapport élaboré à l’issue de l’enquête diligentée en vue d’instruire cette plainte, fût-ce sous une forme expurgée (voir, notamment, les jugements 4820, au considérant 11, 4217, au considérant 4, 3995, au considérant 5, 3831, au considérant 17, et 3347, aux considérants 19 à 21).
[…] S’il peut être admis dans certains cas que le défaut de communication d’une pièce soit corrigé ultérieurement, y compris pendant la procédure devant le Tribunal, (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4217, au considérant 4, et 3117, au considérant 11), une telle régularisation ne saurait être admise lorsque le document en question revêt, comme c’est le cas en l’espèce, une importance essentielle au regard de l’objet du litige (voir les jugements 4820, au considérant 11, 4217, au considérant 4, 3995, au considérant 5, 3831, aux considérants 16, 17 et 29, 3490, au considérant 33, et 2315, au considérant 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973, 3065, 4781, 4900
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; organisation's duties; right to be heard;
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 4900
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, in his first complaint, the partial rejection of his harassment complaint before investigation and, in his fourth complaint, the rejection of his harassment complaint after investigation.
Considerations 35, 43-44
Extract:
[T]he Investigating Subpanel did not disclose to the complainant in any manner the content of the testimony given by Ms F., the only person interviewed during the investigation apart from the complainant and Mr T.S., which prevented the complainant from commenting on that testimony if necessary.
In his complaint before the Tribunal, the complainant submits that this constitutes a breach of the adversarial principle contrary to the Tribunal’s case law, in particular to what the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3065, considerations 7 and 8 [...]
As is evident from the above considerations, the Tribunal dismissed the reasoning followed in this case by both the Director-General in her decision and the JAAB in its opinion, according to which the adversarial principle did not apply at the investigation stage of a harassment procedure and that there was no need to disclose interview notes to the staff member concerned at that stage given that the rules applicable within the Organization did not so require.
It follows from the foregoing that, owing to that procedural flaw and as the Tribunal has already found, for example, in [...] Judgments 4781 and 4739 in similar situations to that of the present case, the Director-General’s impugned decision of 21 October 2021 as well as the previous decision of 16 November 2020 on which it is based must also be set aside [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 4739, 4781
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;
Judgment 4895
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the date of his promotion with retroactive effect and seeks promotion from an earlier date.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes first of all that, in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities (see, in particular, Judgments 4743, consideration 13, 3447, consideration 8, and 3023, consideration 11). It is plain from the written submissions in this regard that the complainant had ample opportunity to present his allegations and arguments in writing and that he was informed, by letter of 19 November 2019, that the chairperson of the chamber to which the internal appeal had been referred had decided not to hold a hearing, since the matter could be properly addressed on the basis of the documentation already filed by the complainant with the Committee.
In this case, the right to be heard orally by the Appeals Committee was indeed applicable at the time when the complainant filed his internal appeal on 23 May 2014. However, following the amendments introduced to the Implementing Rule for Articles 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations by Administrative Council decision CA/D 7/17 of 29 June 2017, which entered into force on 1 July 2017, Article 8(1) of the Service Regulations replaced the right to be heard orally with an option for the chairperson or presiding member of the chamber dealing with the appeal to hold a hearing if she or he considers it useful. According to the Tribunal’s case law, any amendment to the procedural rules applicable before an internal appeals body applies directly to cases pending before that body, unless a transitional provision provides otherwise (see, in particular, Judgment 3895, consideration 4). This not being the case in this instance, the chairperson of the chamber concerned, when he ruled on this point on 19 November 2019, correctly applied Article 8 of the aforementioned Service Regulations, in their new version then in force.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3023, 3447, 3895, 4743
Keywords:
applicable law; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
applicable law; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; discretion; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; oral proceedings; order; promotion; retroactivity; right to be heard; work appraisal;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Considerations 18-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the investigation and disciplinary procedure at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Considerations 13-17
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the selection procedures at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious […] that the Commission interviewed these Federation staff on various issues which touched and concerned “the circumstances in which the offer was rescinded”. This tends to demonstrate that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature, and that it was relating specifically to the rescission of the offer of employment at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 12-15
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] While the Appeals Commission’s report is almost silent about the content of those interviews, its statement that “[…]” tends to demonstrate that the interviews were not about the Federation’s budgetary framework but about the specific situation of the complainant and the decision not to extend his contract. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 27-29 and 36
Extract:
Firm and constant precedent of the Tribunal has it that, before adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organization must give the staff member concerned the opportunity to defend herself or himself in adversarial proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3875, consideration 3).
This principle is particularly important during the investigative stage of disciplinary proceedings as the Tribunal recalled it in the following terms in Judgment 4011, consideration 9:
“The basic applicable principles regarding the right to due process at the investigative stage of disciplinary proceedings were stated by the Tribunal as follows in Judgment 2771, consideration 15:
‘The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation – that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case – is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the ‘investigation be conducted 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’. At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475 and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges.’”
Of course, due process must also be observed at all other stages of disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the following was stated in Judgment 2786, consideration 13:
“Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if he or she so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. 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 Judgment 2496, under 7).”
(See also Judgment 4343, consideration 13.)
The addition of another layer of investigation in the disciplinary process, not contemplated by the internal rules of the organization, which may have, as it did, set aside the findings of the advisory body provided for in these rules, coupled with the absence of sharing with the complainant of the new evidence gathered during this process before a final decision on the disciplinary measure imposed was reached, amounted to gross procedural irregularities that violated the complainant’s right of defence and entitlement to due process.
[…]
Established precedent in the Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff member’s right to due process entails that the organization has an obligation to prove the misconduct complained of beyond reasonable doubt. This serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service and involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the staff member concerned. In this regard, a staff member is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 12, and 4491, consideration 19). In this respect, in Judgment 4047, consideration 6, the Tribunal recalled that it is equally well settled that it will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, it will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact (see also Judgments 4764, consideration 13, 4697, consideration 22, and 4364, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475, 2496, 2771, 2786, 3875, 4011, 4047, 4343, 4364, 4491, 4697, 4764
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; due process in disciplinary procedure; right to be heard;
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 15-17
Extract:
The Tribunal notes, however, that the complainant also submits that the review of the merits of his complaint is tainted by various legal flaws at the first stage of the procedure followed in that regard.
Among the various flaws alleged by the complainant, there is one which also appears substantial in the Tribunal’s view.
As is clear from the above, it is established, as he claims in his written submissions, that the complainant, although he addressed a specific request to the investigators on 28 October 2019, even before the alleged harasser and the witnesses were heard and before the investigators drew up their report, did not have knowledge of the statement made to them by Mr P.H., nor indeed of the witness statements gathered by them, or at least of their content, even in anonymized form, to be able to challenge these before the investigators drew up their report and the Director General made his original decision. This is clearly contrary to the Tribunal’s case law whereby, by virtue of the adversarial principle, the complainant in a harassment complaint must be informed, even before the end of the investigation, of the content of statements made by the persons accused and any testimony gathered as part of the investigation, in order to challenge them if necessary (see, in this respect, Judgment 4781, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein).
It follows that the review of the merits of the first complaint filed by the complainant is itself tainted by at least one substantial flaw which also renders unlawful the decision taken by the Director General on 27 March 2020.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4781
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;
Judgment 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
With regard to the various decisions of 5 July 2019 to abolish the complainant’s functions at the time it was decided to reorganize the Agency, to launch a reassignment procedure in his regard and to place him on “administrative leave” with immediate effect, the complainant alleges, firstly, a violation of his right to be heard, which Eurocontrol disputes.
However, the Tribunal finds that the written submissions of the parties show that the purpose of the discussion that took place on 5 July 2019 – the day on which the Director of the DNM announced the reorganization of the Agency’s structure to staff – was clearly not to hear the complainant about the proposed course of action to be taken in his regard, but simply to notify him of the decisions already taken concerning him. Similarly, it appears that the requests for explanations made by the complainant in the following days also went unanswered.
In this respect, Eurocontrol submits that the purpose of the exercise in this case was to reorganize its services and that the right to be heard individually could not, in any event, be considered in the context of such a general decision.
However, the Tribunal notes that, beyond the reorganization of services exercise decided upon for managerial reasons, the decisions taken on 5 July 2019 had a fundamental impact on the complainant’s situation, since they had, in particular, led to the abolition of his functions, which he strongly contests. These decisions had thus an adverse impact on the complainant, for which reason he should have had the opportunity to state his views before they were taken (see, for example, Judgments 4622, consideration 10, 3124, consideration 3, 1817, consideration 7, and 1484, consideration 8).
The plea that the right to be heard was violated is therefore well-founded as far as the decision to abolish the complainant’s functions is concerned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817, 3124, 4622
Keywords:
abolition of post; reorganisation; right to be heard;
Judgment 4794
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 9
Extract:
As for the complainant’s contention that the objection procedure before the Appraisals Committee set out in Circular No. 366 does not offer the same safeguards as the internal appeal procedure before the Appeals Committee, the complainant has not put forward any arguments showing the objection procedure to be flawed. The Tribunal recalls that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, [...] Judgment 4637, consideration 12, and Judgments 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 4408, 4637
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; rating; right to be heard;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
