|
|
 |
|
|
Confidentiality (905,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Confidentiality
Total judgments found: 28
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5180
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s invalidity reforms.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant dwells at length on his repeated attempts to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with the EPO over several years, to no avail. The Tribunal will not address this issue, considering, on the one hand, that settlement discussions are confidential and, on the other hand, that the negotiation of an amicable settlement lies within the Organisation’s discretion. Any related issues submitted by the complainant are, therefore, beyond the scope of the present complaint."
Keywords:
amicable settlement; confidentiality;
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 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s precedents have it that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against them, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. However, where disciplinary proceedings are brought against officials who have been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused officials, but they must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which they need to defend themselves fully in these proceedings. In order to respect the right of defence, it is sufficient for the officials to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against them and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that they may effectively challenge the probative value thereof […]. In light of the Tribunal’s case law, due process does not necessarily require that the accused staff be provided with the verbatim transcripts of the interviews of the witnesses […]. In conclusion, it was sufficient that the complainant was provided with an accurate written record of the interviews, and this was done.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; investigation; sexual harassment; witness;
Judgment 5000
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the “deemed rejection” of his request for an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the Assistant Director-General at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva; the determination by the Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics that he had not suffered retaliation, and that he was not entitled to protection against retaliation; and WHO’s decision to accept his resignation which he claims constitutes constructive dismissal.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In his rejoinder, the complainant alleges that WHO, in its reply, disclosed confidential information about the settlement discussions, which should not be taken into account by the Tribunal. It will not.
Keywords:
amicable settlement; confidentiality; settlement out of court;
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is useful to recall that according to the Tribunal’s case law, where such staff rules are established, the persons subject to an investigation carried out by an international organization have a duty to cooperate with the investigation and may be sanctioned if they fail to do so (see Judgment 4858, consideration 25). The complainant himself acknowledges that he did not answer questions that he perceived as “an unwarranted intrusion and an unacceptable investigation in the internal affairs of an independent and ‘sovereign’ organization”. By doing so, the complainant violated not only his duty to cooperate with the investigation but also his duty to put the interests of the Organization before his own private interests. In his capacity as an international civil servant, he was not allowed to invoke a duty of confidentiality towards the AIP to refuse to respond to the questions of the IOD. In so doing, he violated his duty of independence and impartiality. In conclusion, the allegations challenging the third charge of the first letter of charges are unfounded and are rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4858
Keywords:
confidentiality; impartiality; independence;
Judgment 4949
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 16
Extract:
En deuxième lieu, en ce qui concerne le manquement allégué à l’obligation de confidentialité, soit celui qu’a initialement invoqué l’organisation en notifiant verbalement au requérant sa suspension le 11 octobre 2021, le Tribunal relève que la CPI n’a pas été en mesure d’établir la nature confidentielle de l’information dont l’intéressé aurait eu connaissance et dont il aurait communiqué la teneur aux deux représentants externes de la délégation d’un État membre en affirmant prétendument, tel qu’allégué par M. D., que «le dossier contre [l’agence de services secrets d’une grande puissance] est prêt; tout est là».
Or, pour établir la violation d’une obligation de confidentialité, encore faut-il établir la connaissance d’une information confidentielle protégée et la communication illicite d’une telle information. D’abord, une information qui fait dorénavant partie du domaine public n’est plus, par sa nature, confidentielle. Ensuite, dans son argumentation sur ce point, l’organisation confond la violation de ce qui serait autrement une obligation de confidentialité et la violation de ce qu’elle qualifie par ailleurs parfois d’obligation de réserve d’un fonctionnaire.
En l’espèce, au sujet des affirmations qu’aurait faites le requérant sur la situation dans le [pays X], les écritures et les pièces du dossier établissent que l’intéressé avait nié plus d’une fois, dont la première fois dès la rencontre avec le Procureur du 15 octobre 2021, avoir utilisé les mots qui lui ont été attribués par M. D. En outre, un des deux représentants de la délégation de l’État membre en question avait fait un témoignage qui semblait corroborer les dires de l’intéressé à ce sujet. Or, malgré cela, le Procureur a fait l’analyse de cette preuve en plaçant l’accent sur le poids et la valeur probante à conférer aux preuves contradictoires présentées, ce qui correspond à une analyse axée sur la prépondérance de la preuve, plutôt que de considérer si un doute raisonnable pouvait naître au regard de la culpabilité potentielle du requérant quant à ce manquement compte tenu de ces contradictions. Ce faisant, le Procureur a méconnu la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal selon laquelle, en matière disciplinaire, le bénéfice du doute doit toujours profiter au fonctionnaire. Ainsi, dans le jugement 4697, au considérant 22, le Tribunal a souligné ce qui suit à ce sujet:
«Dans le jugement 4491, au considérant 19, le Tribunal a rappelé que “[l]e fonctionnaire accusé d’avoir commis une faute bénéficie de la présomption de non-culpabilité et le doute doit lui profiter”. De même, dans le jugement 3969, au considérant 16, le Tribunal a souligné que, lorsque le chef exécutif d’une organisation cherche à motiver ses conclusions et sa décision de s’écarter de celle d’un comité de discipline, il doit établir au-delà de tout doute raisonnable la conduite ou le comportement reproché à un requérant.»
Le Tribunal considère que, en l’espèce, devant cette preuve contradictoire et la teneur du rapport du Comité consultatif de discipline sur ce manquement allégué, le Procureur devait expliquer pourquoi il estimait que les versions divergentes des personnes ayant assisté à l’échange du 11 octobre 2021 ne soulevaient pas de doute raisonnable quant à la preuve de ce manquement, ce qu’il n’a pas fait dans son analyse. Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a rappelé dans le jugement 4360, au considérant 14, une organisation internationale se doit d’examiner les éléments de preuve qui peuvent être considérés comme étant à décharge pour le fonctionnaire accusé de faute. Cela implique nécessairement d’expliquer pourquoi, le cas échéant, ces éléments de preuve ne soulèvent pas un doute raisonnable contrairement à ce qu’a pu considérer le comité de discipline interne, ainsi que ce fut le cas dans la présente affaire.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969, 4360, 4491, 4697
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; confidentiality; evidence;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; confidentiality; duty of discretion; misconduct; serious misconduct; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4948
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him from duty with pay and with immediate effect.
Consideration 16
Extract:
À titre de troisième argument relatif à l’illégalité alléguée de la décision attaquée, le requérant soutient que la décision de suspension était disproportionnée, car il ne représentait aucun risque pour les intérêts et la réputation de la Cour. Mais, sur cet aspect, le rapport de la Commission de recours et la décision attaquée qui a fait sienne ses recommandations expliquent en détails en quoi les intérêts et la réputation de la Cour étaient perçus par l’organisation comme étant potentiellement à risque dans un contexte où ce qui était reproché à l’intéressé était une faute qui pouvait être qualifiée de grave et pouvait constituer une violation sérieuse de l’obligation de confidentialité, du devoir de réserve ou du devoir de loyauté. Vu le caractère sérieux de cette faute potentielle, cela pouvait justifier une décision de suspension avec effet immédiat.
S’agissant de la nécessité d’une mesure de suspension, la jurisprudence du Tribunal reconnaît que, si l’autorité considère que l’accusation de faute formulée contre un fonctionnaire est légitime, «point n’est cependant besoin, à ce stade, d’apporter la preuve que les accusations sont fondées» (voir le jugement 4658, au considérant 2). En l’espèce, les écritures établissent qu’une faute potentiellement grave était reprochée au fonctionnaire. En outre, le Tribunal a rappelé dans ses jugements 4361, au considérant 11, et 4359, au considérant 11, que le paragraphe a) de la règle 110.5 du Règlement du personnel de la CPI est formulé en termes très généraux et vise à conférer au Procureur un pouvoir d’évaluation de la situation à sa discrétion. Dans de tels cas, il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle du Procureur.
Dans un contexte où le Procureur avait reçu des informations en apparence valables de la part de M. D. sur les manquements allégués et où ces informations soulevaient des violations potentielles du devoir de réserve ou de l’obligation de confidentialité du requérant, ainsi qu’un possible partage inopportun d’informations sur un dossier de l’organisation et sur la frustration de ce dernier quant à la réorganisation de certains aspects du fonctionnement de son service, lesquels pouvaient être susceptibles de saper la réputation ou l’image de la Cour auprès d’un État partie, le Tribunal considère que le requérant n’établit pas en quoi, au moment où elle a été appliquée, cette mesure de suspension avec maintien du traitement et avec effet immédiat n’était pas justifiée.
Ce troisième argument à l’appui du deuxième moyen doit être également écarté.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4359, 4361, 4658
Keywords:
confidentiality; duty of discretion; proportionality; suspension;
Consideration 10
Extract:
S’agissant du premier moyen du requérant, portant sur l’irrégularité de la procédure interne suivie par l’organisation, l’intéressé soutient que, contrairement à une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la Commission de recours aurait considéré des faits postérieurs à ceux dont les parties avaient connaissance au moment où la décision de suspension a été prise, que la procédure interne aurait été entachée de partialité et aurait été inéquitable et que la communication du rapport du Mécanisme à la Commission de recours aurait violé la confidentialité de ce document. […]
Le Tribunal constate d’abord que, pour l’essentiel des extraits du rapport de la Commission de recours au sujet desquels le requérant lui fait le reproche d’avoir considéré des faits postérieurs à la décision de le suspendre, ceux-ci se trouvent dans la partie du rapport qui dresse un rappel des faits et de la procédure, et non dans la partie du rapport concernant l’analyse, les considérants et les recommandations. Il n’est par conséquent pas établi que la Commission aurait fondé son analyse sur des éléments postérieurs à la notification de la suspension ou que ces éléments auraient influencé ses conclusions.
Les seuls paragraphes du rapport faisant partie de l’analyse et des considérants de la Commission de recours auxquels renvoie le requérant au soutien de cet argument touchent des faits qui, s’ils sont effectivement postérieurs, ont simplement été relevés par la Commission pour confirmer l’exactitude des faits qui étaient à la connaissance de l’organisation avant sa prise de décision quant à la suspension. Par exemple, les courriels envoyés par M. D. au Procureur postérieurement à la notification de la suspension ne fournissaient qu’une confirmation écrite des allégations portées verbalement à la connaissance du Procureur par ce dernier et ne sauraient constituer des faits postérieurs à la mesure contestée, dont la Commission ne devait pas tenir compte, au sens de la jurisprudence précitée du Tribunal sur la question.
En ce qui concerne les références aux communications du requérant avec son supérieur immédiat, M. B., ou avec son collègue, M. D., postérieurement à la décision de suspension, elles ont simplement étayé les conclusions de la Commission selon lesquelles le requérant était bien au courant de la motivation à l’appui de cette décision et que son argument selon lequel il n’avait pas été dûment informé en temps utile des raisons de sa suspension n’était pas fondé.
Quant au renvoi de la Commission à certains faits postérieurs à la décision de suspension pour répondre aux arguments du requérant sur la prétendue violation du devoir de sollicitude et de bonne foi, dès lors que les arguments du requérant à cet égard portaient sur des gestes posés ou des situations survenues après cette décision, ainsi que sur les conséquences vécues par ce dernier à la suite de celle-ci, force est de constater qu’il ne s’agit pas là de faits postérieurs au sens où l’entend la jurisprudence quant à l’analyse des motifs à l’appui de la décision de suspendre un fonctionnaire, mais de simples renvois à des faits pertinents à l’analyse de la violation potentielle de son devoir de sollicitude par l’organisation.
Ensuite, une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal rappelle que la charge de la preuve à l’appui d’une allégation de partialité ou de traitement inéquitable dans le cadre de la procédure interne appartient au requérant (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4523, au considérant 8), et le Tribunal estime que les écritures n’appuient pas de façon convaincante cette assertion de l’intéressé.
Enfin, le Tribunal observe que le requérant n’est pas fondé à soutenir que la communication du rapport du Mécanisme à la Commission de recours aurait violé la confidentialité de ce rapport. Il n’identifie en effet aucune disposition statutaire qui aurait été méconnue à cet égard, sachant qu’il avait lui-même commenté en détail le rapport du Mécanisme dans le cadre de la procédure interne devant cette Commission. En outre, cette communication ne portait aucunement atteinte à l’exigence d’impartialité de la Commission.
Ce premier moyen est sans fondement et doit être écarté.
Keywords:
bias; confidentiality; subsequent fact;
Judgment 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant correctly points out that there was a violation of the confidentiality of her testimony before the Advisory Board. The rationale behind this confidentiality, as foreseen by Rule 25.2, paragraphs (f) and (g), of the Staff Manual, is not only to protect witnesses’ personal data, but also to ensure that their testimonies remain confidential and that they are neither used against them nor have a negative impact on them, so that witnesses can speak freely without fear of reprisal or retaliation. The Secretary-General improperly used the complainant’s confidential testimony in Advisory Board proceedings concerning an entirely different matter as a basis to assess her performance. This was an error of law. Even if Rule 25.2, paragraphs (f) and (g), of the Staff Manual did not directly apply to the Secretary-General, the latter was bound by the general principle of confidentiality underlying this rule.
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; confidentiality; mistake of law; testimony; witness;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[E]ven though the breach of confidentiality is proven (as it has been acknowledged by the EPO), there is no evidence that the complainant suffered any damage as a result of that breach. Considering all the facts and relevant circumstances of the present case, […] the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s request for damages is unsubstantiated.
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; burden of proof; confidentiality; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; confidentiality; defamation; injunction;
Judgment 4756
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into his allegation of breach of confidentiality and to deny his request for compensation.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has addressed the issue of the IAEA’s duty to maintain the confidentiality of a staff member’s personnel information, as stated in Judgment 4012, consideration 3:
“[T]he filing of confidential personnel information in a publicly accessible email folder constituted a breach of the Organization’s duty to maintain the confidentiality of a staff member’s personnel information. The complainant, however, did not suffer any damage because of this breach. Leaving aside the fact that the complainant did not submit any evidence whatsoever let alone evidence establishing damage to his reputation or otherwise [...] As soon as the emails were located, they were immediately removed. Taking this into account, there will be no award of moral damages for the breach.”
The filing of the letter of 11 November 2016, which contained confidential information, in electronic folders accessible to all staff members constituted a breach of the organization’s duty to maintain the confidentiality of a staff member’s personnel information. In the present case, however, the Director, Division of Human Resources (MTHR) took immediate steps to remedy the design flaw in the ERMS thereby preventing the document from being accessible. The IAEA’s Livelink platform was upgraded to eliminate the risk of such a flaw occurring in the future. In these circumstances, the complainant has not submitted evidence establishing damage to his reputation or other injury arising out of the temporary accessibility of the above-mentioned letter. As the complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence in support of his claim for damages, this request must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4012
Keywords:
confidentiality; moral damages;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; investigation;
Judgment 4751
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the ICC’s refusal to grant his request for several special post allowances.
Consideration 5
Extract:
As a counterclaim, the ICC has asked the Tribunal “to award costs against the [c]omplainant, including the costs of filing submissions”, on the grounds that he “pointlessly and wilfully initiated and prolonged a dispute, with considerable consequences for the defendant [o]rganisation’s resources in terms of the related costs”, in particular by refusing the offer of an amicable settlement.
While it follows from what has been said above that the complaint is unfounded, that does not mean that it can be considered as vexatious. Admittedly, in the present case, the organisation does not contend that the complaint is vexatious on account of its actual content but that the complainant did not have a legitimate reason for filing it since he was offered an amicable settlement. However, the Tribunal cannot take account of information concerning any negotiations – which are inherently confidential – conducted by the parties with a view to settling a dispute before it amicably (see Judgments 4457, consideration 2, and 3586, consideration 5). Hence it could not, in any event, issue orders on the basis of such information (see Judgment 4639, consideration 11).
There are therefore no grounds for granting the ICC’s counterclaim.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4457, 4639
Keywords:
amicable settlement; confidentiality; counterclaim;
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;
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Consideration 10
Extract:
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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347, 3831, 3995, 4217
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4524
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint, as a development reassignment, Ms V.M. to the post of Client Relationship Manager.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he duty to produce documents does not extend to confidential interview reports (see, for example, Judgments 3032, consideration 11, and 4023, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 4023
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; selection procedure;
Judgment 4522
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of confidentiality and the refusal to disclose two documents.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; investigation;
Judgment 4511
134th Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the new final decision made pursuant to the Tribunal’s order in Judgment 3905 concerning the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law states that documents from informal settlement processes are not admissible in the Tribunal as they should not be disclosed in the more formal process (see Judgment 3586, under 5, recently confirmed in Judgment 4457, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4457
Keywords:
agreed termination; confidentiality; evidence;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
Since the Tribunal’s role is to determine whether the Director General and the preliminary investigation report on which he based his decision [...] demonstrate a careful examination of the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of, it is clear that the Tribunal is not in a position to do so without having the entire investigation report available. [...]
In such a situation, the Tribunal could therefore only remit the case to the Organisation for a fresh examination of the complainant’s harassment complaint for it to be properly handled.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; confidentiality; disclosure of evidence;
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is plain from Judgments 4167 and 4217, which also concern complaints of psychological harassment, that a decision is rendered unlawful by the refusal of an organisation’s executive head to disclose to the joint appeals body the report of the investigation into the harassment complaint lodged by the official concerned, or at least a redacted copy thereof. Similarly, in the aforementioned Judgment 4217, considerations 4 to 6, the Tribunal points out that, according to settled case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him. In this case, the Joint Committee for Disputes, on whose opinion the Director General states he bases his decision of 15 December 2016, was not provided with the investigation report concerned. Nor had the complainant received it by the time he was notified on 14 January 2016 that his psychological harassment complaint had been closed. In Judgment 4081, the Tribunal recalls that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the Director General neither provided information nor referred to the Committee’s reasons that would allow the complainant to understand why the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4217
Keywords:
confidentiality; final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Consideration 23
Extract:
Among his various claims, the complainant asks to be provided with the complete preliminary investigation report. The Tribunal notes that the Organisation has already disclosed various parts thereof to the complainant. However, [...] it was in fact required to disclose the entire report, even if that meant redacting it to the extent necessary to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation, in particular to protect the interests of third parties. The Tribunal will therefore make such an order.
The complainant also requests access to all “testimony and interviews gathered”. However, given the requirement of confidentiality [...], the Tribunal will not grant this request.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; confidentiality; order to communicate a report;
Judgment 4457
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 28
Extract:
First, since the beginning of the dispute, the Organization has refused to provide the complainant with the recommendation that he be summarily dismissed issued by the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources Management to the Director-General on the basis of paragraphs 11 and 14 of Item 11.3 of the Human Resources Manual. However, it is settled case law that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which an authority bases its decision against her or him and that the employing organisation cannot withhold such evidence on the grounds of confidentiality (see, for example, Judgments 2700, consideration 6, 3863, consideration 18, or 4293, consideration 4). UNESCO, which in this case confines itself essentially to arguing that the aforementioned recommendation is part of an “internal and confidential procedure”, does not thus advance a sound reason for refusing to provide that document.
Second, it appears that the complainant was not given the opportunity to view, as permitted under Staff Rule 104.10, the personal file that UNESCO held on him. Although the Organization states in its surrejoinder that the complainant could “inspect his personal file at any time”, the evidence shows that he could not actually exercise that right in practice because he was prohibited from entering the Organization’s premises and because of the failure to respond to the steps he had taken, in particular in the run-up to the Appeals Board hearing, with a view to gaining access to that file.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 3863, 4293
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence;
Consideration 2
Extract:
In its further submissions, UNESCO has requested that the Tribunal disregard the last paragraph of the complainant’s rejoinder, in which his representative discloses the content of exchanges between the parties made in the context of an attempt to settle the dispute amicably.
The complainant’s objection to the receivability of this request – in which he seeks to rely on the Tribunal’s case law set out, in particular, in Judgment 3648, consideration 5, according to which an organisation may not raise an objection to receivability in its surrejoinder where it could have done so in its reply – is unfounded. It is true that what was held with regard to the surrejoinder would likewise apply to such further submissions. However, the request in question cannot be regarded as an objection to receivability and is based, moreover, on new information provided by the complainant in his rejoinder. The request is therefore admissible, even though it would have been more natural for UNESCO to make it in the surrejoinder.
As it is, the request is justified. As the Tribunal has already stated, since the confidentiality of amicable dispute settlement procedures must be preserved to increase the likelihood of their success, information relating to any negotiations conducted by the parties with a view to resolving a dispute referred to the Tribunal must not be disclosed in the proceedings before it (see Judgment 3586, consideration 5).
The aforementioned paragraph of the rejoinder, which should indeed be disregarded, will not therefore be taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 3648
Keywords:
additional written submissions; amicable settlement; confidentiality; rejoinder;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In its reply, IFAD requests the Tribunal to disregard a letter sent by the members of the Joint Appeals Board to the President of IFAD on 5 May 2017.
The Tribunal notes that, contrary to what IFAD contends, the letter in question, which made no mention of the confidential nature of its contents, was not confidential and there is nothing to prove that the complainant came to possess it improperly. There is therefore no reason for the Tribunal to disregard this item of evidence.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
