|
|
 |
|
|
Investigation report (904,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Investigation report
Total judgments found: 38
1, 2 | 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:
“[T]he disclosure of the investigation report to the subject of the allegations of harassment must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of an inquiry, particularly that of the witness statements gathered in the course of the inquiry (see Judgment 3640, considerations 19 and 20).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
harassment; investigation report;
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 9
Extract:
“There are no rules that oblige an investigator to provide the subject of an investigation with witness statements during the course of the investigation itself. It is sufficient that the staff concerned be informed of the allegations during their interview and that they are provided with the content of the witness statements, together with the investigation report, at the conclusion of the investigation.”
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report; witness;
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law holds that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence upon which the competent authority bases its decision concerning them (see Judgments 4659, consideration 4, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, and 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organisation must provide staff members with the investigation report on which the disciplinary measure against them is based (see Judgments 4659, consideration 4). However, this must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of certain aspects of an investigation, particularly that of the witness statements gathered in the course of the investigation. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ protection and freedom of expression (see Judgment 3640, considerations 19 and 20). This case law implies that redaction is permissible when necessary to maintain the confidentiality of certain aspects of the investigation, especially to protect the interests of third parties (see Judgments 4815, consideration 14, and 4659, consideration 4).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 3214, 3295, 3640, 4659, 4815
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 7
Extract:
“[The complainant asserts that he should have been provided with the transcripts of witness statements] […] [T]he complainant was provided with a copy of the IOS report […] upon receiving the decision on his harassment [complaint]. The [internal appeal body] correctly considered that the complainant had been provided with the material relied upon by the Organization in relation to the impugned decision and received all the relevant information. Indeed, the IOS report sufficiently summarizes the testimonial […] evidence in support of its findings.”
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 5137
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what she considers to be the refusal to provide her with full access to her personal file.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“The complainant’s contention that the investigation reports into her harassment complaints should have been included in her personal file is also unfounded […] no provision obliged Interpol to include in the complainant’s personal file her harassment complaints and the investigation reports regarding them.”
Keywords:
harassment; interpretation of rules; investigation report; personal file;
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 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 5022
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste le rejet de ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral contre deux de ses supérieurs hiérarchiques.
Considerations 26-28
Extract:
S’agissant […] de la prétention de la requérante relative au refus d’Interpol de lui remettre les rapports d’enquête litigieux dans leur intégralité en temps opportun, les écritures et les pièces des dossiers établissent que, malgré ses demandes formelles présentées dès les mois de juillet et août 2018, la requérante n’a reçu l’intégralité de ces rapports d’enquête que dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne, soit en décembre 2019 et janvier 2020. Bien qu’elle ait eu la possibilité de consulter ces rapports d’enquête à quatre reprises au cours de l’été 2018, il n’est pas remis en question que, à ces occasions, elle n’en a pas reçu de copie, même sous une forme expurgée, et n’a pas pu être accompagnée. Ainsi que le soutient à juste titre la requérante, en l’espèce, la consultation des rapports n’était pas du tout équivalente à leur communication, compte tenu notamment du volume des documents. De surcroît, il appert qu’une déclaration de confidentialité interdisait à la requérante de divulguer la moindre information tirée de cette consultation.
Bien que la requérante ait eu l’opportunité de formuler ses observations sur ces rapports dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne […], il n’en reste pas moins que ceux-ci ne lui ont été transmis que très tardivement et que l’Organisation a, une fois de plus, méconnu la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal à cet égard.
En effet, la requérante était en droit de recevoir ces rapports d’enquête puisqu’ils servaient de fondement à la décision contestée […] (voir à ce sujet les jugements 4663, au considérant 6, 4217, au considérant 4, 3995, au considérant 5, et la jurisprudence citée). Or, malgré l’obligation qui lui incombait de fournir ces rapports, Interpol a persisté pendant de longs mois dans son refus injustifié de les communiquer, en violation du droit de l’intéressée à un recours interne effectif et, partant, à une procédure régulière.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3995, 4217, 4663
Keywords:
confidentiality; harassment; investigation report;
Judgment 4968
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision, taken following a preliminary evaluation, to dismiss her complaint of harassment against Mr R.S.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
[T]he approach of the complainant fundamentally misconceives what would be required to persuade the Tribunal that the allegation of harassment should have been investigated further. The yardstick for determining whether the matter should have been investigated further is not what is subsequently said by the complainant in pleas in the Tribunal about the conduct of [the alleged perpetrator] and a range of other matters, but rather what was said in the initial complaint [of harassment] lodged on 11 September 2018 […] That initial complaint, but subject one qualification, created the parameters for assessing the scope of the inquiry into the complainant’s allegations and the mechanisms WIPO arguably should have adopted to undertake it […] as part of determining the fate of the complaint. It is not the role of the Tribunal to assume the considerable burden of assessing what is said in the complaint of September 2018 and comparing and correlating it with what is said in the pleas which are considerably more expansive. On their face, they are not co-extensive. The qualification referred to […] concerns the preliminary evaluation report. Ordinarily, in addition to the initial complaint, it would be appropriate to review the findings, doubtless preliminary in nature, in the preliminary evaluation report and the material on which it was based to assess what further steps, if any, should have been taken. However, no reliance was placed by the complainant on this report and indeed it is not even in evidence before the Tribunal. This plea […] should be rejected.
Keywords:
harassment; investigation report; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4964
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision, taken following an investigation, to dismiss her complaint of harassment and sexual harassment against Mr E.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant’s request for an unredacted copy of the investigation report is rejected since she received a redacted version of the investigation report and there is no right to an unredacted copy of the investigation report under the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4703, consideration 9, 4471, consideration 23, and 3995, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3995, 4471, 4703
Keywords:
investigation report;
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 keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; 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 10
Extract:
The complainant’s argument that in violation of the adversarial principle the JAB did not obtain a copy of the OIOS report [into the investigation of her retaliation complaint] nor provided it to her for comment is […] inconsequential, since through the present complaint the complainant is not impugning the decision to close her retaliation complaint but the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Keywords:
investigation report; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Judgment 4917
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
In her third plea, the complainant argues that UNIDO’s refusal to share with the JAB the final investigation report into her retaliation complaint impeded the latter’s proper evaluation of her allegations of retaliation. A related argument advanced by the complainant is that she “should have been given the opportunity to comment on documents that would be considered and relied upon by [UNIDO] in the [non-renewal] decision”. UNIDO contends that the plea of breach of due process rights has no merit because the investigation report was completed several months after the [non-renewal] decision of 29 April 2021 and “played no role” in such decision. […] while it is true that the case law of the Tribunal states that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases its decision against her or him, in the present case the non-renewal decision dated 29 April 2021 was not based on the content of the investigation report, which was completed several months later, in October 2021. The impugned decision did not rely on the content of the investigation report either. The complainant’s third plea is therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant’s request for disclosure of the investigation report concerning her allegations of procurement irregularities against Mr S. is unrelated to the subject matter of the present complaint and is rejected.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report;
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:
On the specific question of the disclosure of investigation reports, the Tribunal has distinguished between:
(i) cases concerning an administrative decision notified to a staff member which is based on an investigation report; and
(ii) cases concerning earlier requests for disclosure – that is, requests made shortly after the completion of the report and before the adoption of a decision.
In the first situation, an organization is ordinarily bound to disclose the investigation report together with the decision on the harassment complaint, or at least shortly after, where requested by the concerned party (see Judgments 4743, consideration 11, 4739, considerations 10 and 12, and 4547, consideration 10). On the contrary, in the second situation, unless it is otherwise established in the staff rules and regulations, an organization is not bound to disclose the investigation report before the decision is adopted (see Judgment 3831, consideration 11). The complainant’s reliance on Judgment 4217, consideration 4, is misconceived, as in that case the request for disclosure of the investigation report into a harassment complaint was submitted after – and not before – the adoption of the decision, as in the present case.
The Tribunal is aware that its case law has occasionally stated that the alleged victim of harassment must be provided with the investigation report before the issuance of the decision on the harassment complaint (see Judgment 3347, considerations 19 to 21). It may be doubted that this judgment reflects a consistent line of authority both, before and after it was given. However, and in any event, this principle can only be applied on a case-by-case basis, where the specific circumstances of the case so demand. It is not the case here, considering that the alleged author of sexual harassment had retired on 23 February 2018, well before the complainant’s request for disclosure of the investigation report. Thus, there was no urgent need, on the part of the complainant, to obtain the investigation report in advance, for the purposes of her harassment complaint, whilst further purposes pursued by the complainant (to use the report as a piece of evidence in her three other pending complaints) are immaterial and outside the scope of the present complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347, 3831, 4217, 4547, 4739, 4743
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; investigation report;
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;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disclosure of evidence; harassment; investigation report;
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.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Secondly, it appears, as the Organisation acknowledges in its reply, that the investigation report was also not provided, either in full or even in anonymized form, to the Joint Committee for Disputes before it gave its opinion on 27 February 2020, which in itself also constitutes a flaw since the Committee must be able under all circumstances to give a full and informed opinion (see, in this respect, Judgments 4471, consideration 14, and 4167, consideration 3).
The fact that the members of the Committee considered unanimously that the complainant’s internal complaint was well-founded is irrelevant in this respect, since the Committee could have given an even more reasoned opinion on the merits had it been provided with the final investigation report.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4471
Keywords:
final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
Judgment 4776
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his harassment complaint after a preliminary review.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; investigation; investigation report;
Consideration 11
Extract:
At least in this respect the preliminary review transmogrified into a full investigation. In these circumstances the complainant was entitled to be provided with a copy of the preliminary review report, as he requested on 3 December 2019 after having been informed on 20 November 2019 that the Inspector General ad interim had decided to close his harassment complaint. Consistent with Judgment 4471, he was entitled to review the report and, in particular, what was said in the report about the results of interviews by the external examiner with others and the conclusions reached.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4471
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report;
Judgment 4743
137th Session, 2024
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close a complaint of harassment he had filed and two related matters.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Inasmuch as the Director General relied upon the investigative report in making the decision to close the complainant’s harassment complaint, a copy of that report, albeit redacted to the extent necessary to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation linked in particular to protecting the interests of third parties, should have been provided to the complainant. This should have been done at least during the internal appeals procedure so as not to unlawfully deprive him of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed in part; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; order to communicate a report;
Consideration 10
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s argument that his due process rights were violated, the Tribunal recalls its case law, recently confirmed in Judgment 4313, consideration 7, that “a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all material evidence that is likely to have a bearing on the outcome of her or his claims (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a)) and that failure to disclose that evidence constitutes a serious breach of the requirements of due process (see Judgment 3071, under 37)”, as well as that “in the context of an investigation into allegations of harassment, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, under 8, 3617, under 12, 4108, under 4, 4109, under 4, 4110, under 4, and 4111, under 4)”. Also, in Judgment 4217, consideration 4, the Tribunal held that “by refusing to provide the complainant with the [investigation] report […] during the internal appeals procedure it nevertheless unlawfully deprived her of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation” and “the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the report during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process”.
In Judgment 4547, consideration 10, the Tribunal held that:
“It is well settled in the Tribunal’s 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 3347, considerations 19 to 21, and 3831, consideration 17, and also Judgments 3995, consideration 5, and 4217, consideration 4).”
The legal vacuum in the Global Fund’s rules does not absolve the Administration from the obligation to disclose the investigation report to a person reporting harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767, 3065, 3071, 3347, 3347, 3617, 3831, 3995, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4217, 4313, 4547
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
Consideration 10
Extract:
According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, recently recalled in Judgment 4547, consideration 3, “a staff member who lodges a harassment complaint is plainly a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well founded, even though she or he would not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator in the event that the harassment was recognised. The staff member concerned is therefore entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4547
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Global Fund’s refusal to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, even with reasonable redactions to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of the investigation, during the internal appeal process, seriously breached the complainant’s right to due process. It unlawfully deprived him of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process. It follows that the impugned decision […] was tainted by a fundamental flaw and must therefore be set aside […].
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeal; investigation report; right to information;
Judgment 4703
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the case arising from his reports of alleged misconduct and to reject his request to be provided with an unredacted version of the final investigation report.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant was provided with a copy of the redacted version of the final investigation report and there is no right to an unredacted copy of the final investigation report under the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4471, consideration 23, and 3395, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3395, 4471
Keywords:
investigation report;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The applicable staff rules did not provide for cross-examination of the accused person and/or of the witnesses, nor do they require verbatim records of the interviews, which is not contrary to the case law (see Judgments 4579, consideration 3, and 2771, consideration 18). Therefore, the allegations that there were no verbatim records of the interviews and that the complainant was not allowed to cross-examine the accused persons and the witnesses fail. The case law requires that the person who lodged a harassment complaint be informed of the content of the interviews and be allowed to comment on them (see Judgments 4111, consideration 4, 4110, consideration 4, 4109, consideration 4, 4108, consideration 4, and 3875, consideration 3).
[…]
[T]he complainant was provided with the investigation report, together with the minutes of the testimonies attached to it. Even though she received the investigation report only after she had lodged her internal appeal, she was given ten further working days […] to supplement her appeal. She was asked to confirm […] whether she wished to avail herself of this option, and she did not. Therefore, she was allowed to further comment on the investigation report, and she chose not to. Considering that she was able to rely on the investigation report during the appeal proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that her right to due process was not breached (see Judgment 4406, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3875, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4406, 4579
Keywords:
duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; harassment; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 4663
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to acknowledge the harassment that she alleges she suffered and to provide her with the full inquiry report drawn up following her internal complaint against a colleague.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
As regards [...] the failure to disclose to the complainant the entire preliminary inquiry report, which was central to the case, before the Joint Appeals Committee delivered its opinion and the Secretary General adopted the impugned decision, it is well settled that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base a decision that adversely affects her or him (see Judgment 4622, consideration 12). Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 4587, consideration 12).
Furthermore, the Tribunal has consistently stated that a staff member must be provided with all the materials an adjudicating body uses in an internal appeal and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process (see Judgments 4412, consideration 14, 3413, consideration 11, and 3347, considerations 19, 20 and 21). In Judgment 4541, consideration 3, the Tribunal accordingly confirmed that a refusal to disclose an investigation report to a staff member in good time – even in a situation where, contrary to what happened in the present case, the report would have been provided at the same time as the organisation’s final decision – has the consequence of denying the staff member the opportunity to meaningfully challenge the findings of the investigation concerned in internal appeal proceedings conducted within the organisation.
In Judgment 4217, consideration 4, the Tribunal emphasised the importance of disclosing an investigation report similar to the one which the complainant had requested in the present case and noted that the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the report during the proceedings before the Tribunal did not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process [...].
Lastly, in Judgment 4471, consideration 23, the Tribunal stated that the disclosure of extracts of a preliminary investigation report is generally not sufficient and an organisation is required to disclose the entire report, even if this means redacting it to the extent necessary to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation, linked in particular to protecting the interests of third parties.
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that, having regard in particular to the content of the witness statements taken during the preliminary inquiry, from which it is plain that their disclosure was not liable to adversely affect the interests of third parties, there was nothing to prevent the complainant from being provided in good time with the full report of that inquiry and the transcripts of interviews that were appended to it. Such disclosure was essential if the complainant’s rights were to be observed, since the Secretary General and the Joint Appeals Committee relied on those documents and the complainant should therefore have been given the opportunity to comment on them.
The complainant requested a copy of the preliminary inquiry report of 10 October 2017 on no fewer than four occasions. The Joint Appeals Committee was aware of these requests, as was the Secretary General. During the internal appeal proceedings, however, the Organization merely quoted short excerpts from the report in its submissions, without providing the complainant with the full report. This response was incomplete and insufficient. Furthermore, although the Committee itself requested the full report and considered the report during its examination of the case, it did not inform the complainant of the full content of the report at any point. Staff Rules 10.3.2(5) and 10.3.4(3) provide that the official must have access to the documents and forms of evidence submitted to a joint committee and the official must have the opportunity to express her- or himself on the evidence used as a basis for a consultative opinion. Moreover, although Staff Rule 10.3.5(1,b) provides that a joint committee’s opinion must include a copy of the relevant documents submitted to it, the inquiry report was not appended to the opinion of the Joint Appeals Committee.
In the impugned decision the Secretary General endorsed the Committee’s recommendations, which referred to the inquiry report, but failed to send it to the complainant yet again. The Tribunal recalls that, in that decision, the Secretary General confirmed his earlier decision of 1 December 2017, which had rejected the complainant’s request for review by referring to what must be understood as the transcripts of the witness interviews conducted by the investigators, without their having been sent to the complainant at any time.
The Tribunal is not persuaded by the Organization’s attempt to justify the decision not to provide a copy of the report or the transcripts on the basis of the requirement that they be kept confidential. It notes that the Organization eventually provided the complete inquiry report and its annexes without redacting them at all, which shows that the Organization itself ultimately admitted that there was nothing preventing their disclosure.
It follows from the above that the complainant’s plea in this respect is well founded. These irregularities in the internal procedure constitute a substantial defect rendering both the impugned decision and the prior decision of 1 December 2017 unlawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347, 3413, 4217, 4412, 4471, 4541, 4587, 4622
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; harassment; investigation report;
Judgment 4659
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that it is undisputed that the preliminary inquiry report was never sent to the complainant in its entirety, even in a version redacted to the extent necessary to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation, linked in particular to protecting the interests of third parties. It is true that, as the Organization argues, the actual disciplinary proceedings were only initiated by the notification of the Secretary General’s confidential memorandum of 26 March 2018. However, the fact remains that the preliminary inquiry report also constitutes obviously an important element of the proceedings in the present case, since the charges initially brought against the complainant were based on that report and it had been forwarded to both the Joint Disciplinary Committee and the Joint Appeals Committee, which took it into consideration in their respective opinions.
It follows that Staff Rule 10.3.2(5), under which the official concerned “[shall] have access to all documents and forms of evidence submitted to the Joint Committees” was not complied with and there was a breach of due process as established in the Tribunal’s case law (see Judgments 4412, consideration 14, 4310, consideration 11, and 3295, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3295, 4310, 4412
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidentiality; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; investigation report;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
