|
|
 |
|
|
Communication to third party (150,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Communication to third party
Total judgments found: 17
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Considerations 11 and 15
Extract:
"This Tribunal has recognised staff members’ right to privacy. An example is found in Judgment 2271. [...]
[T]he issue is whether there was a breach of privacy or confidentiality as a result of the disclosure to the Director of PSM/HRM of the fact that the complainant had made an Appendix D claim. The answer is readily found in Judgment 3004 at consideration 6. [...] The disclosure of the mere fact that the claim had been made involved a breach of confidentiality. Being in a similar situation, the complainant should be awarded 4,000 euros as moral damages for breach of confidentiality."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271, 3004
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; lack of consent; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]s a general rule, an organisation should refrain from passing on damaging information about a staff member. If the recipient of that information has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth [...] it should refrain from passing on damaging information without first giving the staff member an opportunity to challenge it and give his or her own account."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty of care; duty of discretion; injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; rebuttal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142
Keywords:
candidate; communication to third party; competition; disclosure of evidence; right; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 2796
106th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant asks that the defendant provide him with a positive work reference and that information concerning the issues raised in his complaint be given to some delegates.
"None of these matters was the subject of his internal appeals. Accordingly, those claims are irreceivable (see Judgments 899, 1263, 1443 and 2213). Further and save in exceptional cases where an international organisation has a continuing duty to undo damage caused by its own communications to a third party, as in Judgment 2720, the Tribunal is not competent to issue orders of the kind sought (see Judgments 126, 1591 and 2058)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 126, 899, 1263, 1443, 1591, 2058, 2213, 2720
Keywords:
claim; communication to third party; compensation; competence of tribunal; exception; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2757
105th Session, 2008
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Malice is generally described either as the absence of good faith or as acting from improper motive. Frequently, the absence of a belief on reasonable grounds is sufficient to base an inference of malice. So, too, is the communication of information that is defamatory of a person to those who do not have a legitimate interest in obtaining that information."
Keywords:
communication to third party; definition; good faith; grounds; intention of parties;
Judgment 2649
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897
Keywords:
breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2396
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Any administrative or disciplinary body of an organisation which consults a third party to obtain information concerning the professional behaviour of one of its staff members must naturally avoid impairing the latter's dignity and reputation. In the first place, it absolutely must ensure that the presumption of his innocence is maintained, and if its action is such as to breach the presumption of innocence or the fundamental rights of the staff member, making that action confidential is of no avail."
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; executive body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; qualifications; respect for dignity; right;
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the Office, as is its duty, to protect the reputation of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1619). But it notes that the defendant was under no obligation to seek the complainant's agreement as to the form and the terms of the communication to be sent to the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report and to those who subsequently indicated publicly that they had had knowledge of the report's conclusions. The Tribunal will not issue any injunction in this respect, but will leave it to the defendant to inform the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report, through whatever channels it deems appropriate, that it was regrettable that the report, which should have remained confidential and which concerns persons who were entitled to the protection of that confidentiality, should have been unlawfully circulated, which was all the more serious for the fact that some of its content was defamatory."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1619
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; communication to third party; confidential evidence; discretion; harassment; internal appeals body; official; organisation; organisation's duties; report; right; supervisor;
Consideration 13
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "Had this report been seen only by the persons entitled to receive it, it might not have injured the complainant's reputation, given that it was issued by an authority of the Organization which had no power of decision. However, as pointed out above, the whole of the report was communicated to persons who were not entitled to see it and there is no doubt that this disclosure, which was contrary to the obligation of confidentiality by which the Ombudsperson is bound pursuant to Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations, caused the complainant injury warranting compensation, even though the report was circulated 'on a confidential basis'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; communication to third party; compensation; confidential evidence; harassment; injury; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 2304
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246
Keywords:
application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2271
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The confidential nature of medical information concerning the state of health of staff members constitutes a key element of their right to privacy. It is no doubt both necessary and legitimate for an international organisation, like any employer, to investigate requests for sick leave, to examine medical certificates and to have the health of its staff members checked by appropriate means. Such information should be gathered and processed on a fully confidential basis, however, and should never be communicated to third parties without the explicit consent of the person concerned. [...] The fact that the members of the Appeals Committee are bound by an obligation of confidentiality does not mean that information covered by medical secrecy can be disclosed to them without the consent of the persons concerned."
Keywords:
communication to third party; confidential evidence; internal appeals body; lack of consent; medical certificate; medical records; organisation's duties; right to privacy; sick leave;
Judgment 2074
91st Session, 2001
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The burden of proving that a document was actually received by its addressee lies with the party which cites it in evidence."
Keywords:
burden of proof; communication to third party;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17(D)
Extract:
The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; due process in disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; evidence; witness;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The reason why the complainant was given an unsatisfactory rating for conduct was that, as he does not deny, he had disclosed his superior's 'day'. That was a clear breach of Regulation 1.7", which bars officials from communicating information known to them by reason of their official position which has not been made public.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF REGULATION 1.7
Keywords:
communication to third party; conduct; confidential evidence; duty of discretion; staff member's duties;
Judgment 256
34th Session, 1975
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The contested act [the issue of an attestation to a third party] is a decision in the true sense of the term. "[T]here is no need for the impugned decision itself to pronounce on the validity of an earlier decision. Otherwise an appeals body could never be called upon to determine the lawfulness of any act other than a decision, and that would run counter to commonly held opinion. It is therefore immaterial in the present case whether or not the issue of an attestation may be regarded as a decision."
Keywords:
communication to third party; criteria; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In certain circumstances information which third parties seek from the organisation about its officials may be used to the prejudice of the latter. Hence, in its capacity as an employer bound to safeguard the lawful interests of its staff members insofar as is compatible with its own interests and those of third parties, the organisation is as a rule bound to inform its staff members of requests for information about them before answering such requests, in particular to enable staff members to prevent the injurious effects of using the information divulged."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty to inform; organisation; organisation's duties; personal file;
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant attacks the issue of an attestation containing details of his recruitment and his private life to the lawyer of his former wife. The Tribunal rules that this is indeed a decision but in order for the claim to be receivable, the complainant "must [...] have an interest which is worth safeguarding. On that score there is no doubt."
Keywords:
cause of action; communication to third party; personal file; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The organisation provided a third party with an attestation on the complainant's recruitment and private life. "[I]n failing to inform the complainant of the request for information about him the organisation failed to perform a duty by which it was bound [...] The fact that the attestation contained only information which had been published or was a matter of public knowledge is not decisive. The most that can be said is that that fact would have relieved the organisation of the duty to consult the complainant if the information sought had plainly not been of such a nature as to cause him any prejudice whatever. Such was not the case, however".
Keywords:
communication to third party; confidential evidence; duty to inform; injury; organisation's duties; personal file;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The organisation, "in its capacity as an employer bound to safeguard the lawful interests of its staff [...] is as a rule bound to inform its staff members of requests for information about them [...]" This is an implicit statutory obligation. "In view of the possible consequences of a breach it is in fact a legal duty and not just a rule of courtesy or expediency."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty to inform; enforcement; organisation; personal file; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 232
32nd Session, 1974
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"No general principle of law bars one organisation from communicating to another information on its former employees, provided that such information is materially correct and related to the employees' professional qualifications and is not given with malicious intent."
Keywords:
communication to third party; organisation; organisation's duties; other; personal file; work appraisal;
Judgment 63
11th Session, 1962
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant failed to comply with several of his obligations under the Staff Rules and Regulations; thus "by communicating to third parties information on official matters which had not been publicised in any way[,] he acted contrary to the duty of discretion defined by [the applicable Regulation]."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty of discretion;
|
|
|
|
|
