Notification of allegations (902,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Notification of allegations
Total judgments found: 5

• 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:

  “[A]lthough it would be preferable to notify the persons concerned that they are to be the subject of an investigation prior to the start of such investigation, except where this would be liable to compromise the outcome of the investigation, such advance notice is not a requisite element of due process (see Judgments 4310, consideration 6, and 3295, consideration 8); it is sufficient that the accused staff member be informed of the allegations at the beginning of the interview (see Judgments 4770, consideration 4, 4237, consideration 10, 4310, consideration 6, 4106, consideration 9, and 3200, consideration 8); there is no principle in the Tribunal’s case law stating that a staff member must receive detailed information about the allegations prior to the investigation interview (see Judgment 4106, consideration 9).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3200, 3295, 4106, 4237, 4310, 4770
  

  Keywords:

  investigation; notification of allegations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5122

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.

  Consideration 23

  Extract:

  [T]here was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary stage prior to the imposition of any sanction upon the complainant. Notably, Rule 10.2.03 of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, then in force, under the heading “Due process”, stated, in effect, that no disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a staff member unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as the right to seek assistance in his or her defence, as well as be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the Director-General issued the disciplinary measures against the complainant in the letter of 7 February 2020 to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report, as was required by paragraph 1.18 of Part IX of the Policy on Confidentiality. The complainant’s right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was thereby violated.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary charges; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; legal assistance; notification of allegations; patere legem; right; rules of the organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4310

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Although this is not an indispensable condition for due process (see Judgments 3295, under 8, and 4106, under 9), it is preferable that the subject of an investigation should be notified of the opening of an investigation into her or his conduct and the charges against her or him before being heard, so that she or he has an opportunity to explain her or his conduct and to submit any exculpatory evidence. If this does not occur, that information must, in any event, be provided at the beginning of the hearing.
  [A]t the beginning of the interview, one of the investigators explained that it was a “follow-up” to the audit report of 2012 and to “certain things” that had come to the IAO’s attention. He then emphasised that the interview was confidential, adding that “for example, [the] report goes to the Director-General afterwards. [There’s] a committee in Geneva which is responsible for reading reports from the [Investigation] Unit, and then [makes] direct recommendations to the Director-General.” Given that the complainant had not been notified in advance and was unaware of the content of the 2012 audit report, such general statements cannot be considered sufficient to inform him of the opening of an investigation and the charges against him. The investigators failed to indicate plainly the allegations against him. They merely questioned him on the events leading to the finding of misconduct on eight counts for which the disciplinary sanction was ultimately imposed. It is true that at the end of the interview, the investigators mentioned, in a very cursory manner, that a report on the interview would be forwarded to the Director of the IAO and the Committee on Accountability, which could recommend “disciplinary action or sanctions or things like that” to the Director-General. However, that explanation had to be clearly expressed at the beginning of the interview.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3295, 4106
  

  Keywords:

  notification of allegations; opening of an investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4227

  
  129th Session, 2020
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The fourth of the complainant’s procedural grounds is that during the investigation and disciplinary process the allegations against him shifted. While the focus of the factual foundation of the charges varied during the entire process, the substance of the charges remained constant. This is not a case analogous to that arising in Judgment 4063.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063
  

  Keywords:

  notification of allegations; procedural rights during investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3200

  
  115th Session, 2013
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  It will often be fair to the accused to give notice of the allegations some time before the interview, perhaps even days, so that the accused has an opportunity to gather their thoughts about who might give evidence on the accused’s behalf and, in appropriate cases, identify documents which might assist the accused’s defence. Of course, as paragraph 5.2 [of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual] also contemplates, such notice might be inappropriate if it compromised the integrity of the investigation, but that is likely not to be the norm. However, what is clear is that this step of informing the accused of the allegations should occur before the interview.

  Keywords:

  duty to inform about the investigation; notification of allegations; procedural rights during investigation;