Procedural flaw (559,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Procedural flaw
Total judgments found: 150
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4902
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant further maintains that paragraph 31 of AC 26 was violated because the HR representative who was to be consulted for the performance qualification during a collegial meeting was not present at that meeting as contemplated in the applicable procedures.
But, on this other issue, the record indicates that the HR representative stated at the JAAB hearing that during the final collegial consultation meeting of 24 March 2020, she had been unable to attend due to technical problems but that she finally ended up talking to the IT Head of Department later on the same day with regard to this collegial consultation.
While it is true that this discussion did not take place in an ideal collegial manner as a result of this technical problem, the fact remains that a meeting took place, with only one member missing, and that the consultation with the HR representative occurred later on the very same day and allowed the Head of Department to meet the requirements of the procedure set forth in AC 26 in this regard. This was also not the only consultation conducted in the performance process, and the missing member was the representative of HR, who did not have direct input to give on the appraisal of the performance of the complainant and was rather plausibly there to provide technical expertise.
In sum, even accepting that this constituted a procedural flaw, the Tribunal considers that it does not, in any event, amount to a substantial defect that would render the performance appraisal irregular and justify setting aside the impugned decision on that basis.
[…]
The complainant further maintains that paragraph 31 of AC 26 was violated because the HR representative who was to be consulted for the performance qualification during a collegial meeting was not present at that meeting as contemplated in the applicable procedures.
But, on this other issue, the record indicates that the HR representative stated at the JAAB hearing that during the final collegial consultation meeting of 24 March 2020, she had been unable to attend due to technical problems but that she finally ended up talking to the IT Head of Department later on the same day with regard to this collegial consultation.
While it is true that this discussion did not take place in an ideal collegial manner as a result of this technical problem, the fact remains that a meeting took place, with only one member missing, and that the consultation with the HR representative occurred later on the very same day and allowed the Head of Department to meet the requirements of the procedure set forth in AC 26 in this regard. This was also not the only consultation conducted in the performance process, and the missing member was the representative of HR, who did not have direct input to give on the appraisal of the performance of the complainant and was rather plausibly there to provide technical expertise.
In sum, even accepting that this constituted a procedural flaw, the Tribunal considers that it does not, in any event, amount to a substantial defect that would render the performance appraisal irregular and justify setting aside the impugned decision on that basis.
Keywords:
performance evaluation; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4883
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint at the end of the preliminary assessment procedure.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In this context, the appropriate course is to award the complainant financial compensation for the moral injury caused by the impugned decision. Since the complainant was denied her right to have her harassment complaint properly examined, the Tribunal considers that she suffered moral injury that should be redressed (see for example, in this respect, Judgment 4471, considerations 20 to 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4471
Keywords:
harassment; moral injury; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4845
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment following the suppression of his post.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The complainant alleges that there was a breach [...] of his right to an effective internal appeal, insofar that the Secretary General failed to respond to the repeated requests from the Joint Appeals Committee for information about the efforts actually made by the Organization to reassign him.
The Organization does not dispute its lack of response but justifies it by the fact that it was not in a position to supply the missing information requested by the Committee within the timeframe set by the latter owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact thereof on its services. [...]
In the present case, it is clear that the Secretary General breached [the applicable provisions] by failing to respond to the request from the Alternate President of the Committee to provide information by the deadline given to him, even after that deadline was extended. Aside from the fact that it is doubtful that, at the time when the information was requested by the Committee, on 30 September and 13 October 2022, and whereas it is apparent from the written submissions that the Organization was able to send other emails to the Committee during the same period, the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on Interpol’s functioning could, alone, have amounted to “circumstances beyond the Organization’s control”, preventing it from responding to the two requests for information made by the Chairperson of the Committee and thereby constituting a case of force majeure within the meaning of the case law, the Tribunal notesthat, in any event, the Secretary General never responded to the Alternate President of the Committee, if only to allege such a case of force majeure.
It follows that, as a result of the Organization’s conduct in this case, the Joint Appeals Committee was not in a position to give its opinion in full knowledge of the facts. The fact that the Secretary General subsequently attempted to mitigate the lack of response by making his own request [...] for the information which the Committee had asked for clearly does not remedy the irregularity in the procedure followed. It does not change the fact that the Committee was deprived of certain important information which it would have needed in order to provide its opinion in full knowledge of the facts.
It follows that [...] the impugned decision was taken at the end of a procedure in which the complainant’s right to an effective internal appeal was breached.
Keywords:
advisory opinion; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; right of appeal;
Judgment 4826
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for alleged procedural errors in the processing of her complaint of harassment and misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case reopened; complaint dismissed; due process; harassment; procedural flaw;
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 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Mais, si les conditions dans lesquelles il a été procédé au renouvellement du CIPM étaient ainsi incontestablement irrégulières, le Tribunal estime qu’il n’en résulte pas pour autant, compte tenu des observations qui précèdent, que cette irrégularité constituerait un vice substantiel justifiant que le Tribunal déclare illégales les décisions subséquentes édictées par ce comité. Cette conclusion s’impose d’autant plus que l’irrégularité en cause n’affecte en rien les droits des fonctionnaires de l’organisation, dans la mesure où le mode de renouvellement du CIPM est sans rapport avec les garanties dont ils jouissent.
Keywords:
flaw; formal flaw; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant in these proceedings seeks to impugn decision CA/D 2/14 on the basis that a number of anterior procedural and allied irregularities attended the adoption of the decision and impact on its lawfulness. As noted in another judgment adopted at this session concerning another complainant (see Judgment 4482), these arguments are not available to the complainant in the present proceedings. The complainant cannot approbate and reprobate. The invocation of the right to freely associate upon which he wishes to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction renders irrelevant the question whether the decision was legally flawed for the other reasons raised by the complainant in this case. Consequently, there is a legal boundary for arguments the complainant may maintain.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4482
Keywords:
complaint; freedom of association; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4482
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant also seeks to impugn decision CA/D 2/14 on the basis that a number of anterior procedural and allied irregularities attended the adoption of the decision and impact on its lawfulness. These arguments are not available to the complainant. The complainant cannot approbate and reprobate. The invocation of the right to freely associate upon which he wishes to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction renders irrelevant the question whether the decision was legally flawed for the other reasons raised by the complainant in this case. Consequently, there is a legal boundary for arguments the complainant may maintain.
Keywords:
general decision; procedural flaw;
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.
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 22
Extract:
[T]he complainant was denied the right to have his harassment complaint dealt with within a reasonable time, to receive an adequate motivation for its dismissal and to have a copy of the preliminary investigation report concerning that complaint provided in a timely and appropriate manner. This has inevitably caused him considerable moral injury which must be redressed (see, concerning acknowledgement of moral injury in such circumstances, Judgments 4167, consideration 9, 3314, consideration 20, and 2973, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973, 3314, 4167
Keywords:
harassment; moral injury; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4464
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s refusal to recognise the illness from which he states he suffers as service-incurred.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
In the light of all these circumstances, the Tribunal finds the board’s composition and functioning were tainted by a substantial flaw owing to the role played by a medical practitioner who was not a member.
This flaw is a sufficient basis to find not only that the medical board’s conclusions in the report of 22 July 2019 are invalid, but also that the Director-General’s final decision of 16 January 2020 must be set aside.
Keywords:
medical board; medical opinion; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4455
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 15
Extract:
There is no general legal obligation on an organisation to give a member of staff an opportunity to contest a prospective decision to suspend her or him. Thus, there was no flawed procedure.
Keywords:
due process; procedural flaw; suspension;
Judgment 4447
133rd Session, 2022
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of some of her functions, arguing that such removal amounted to de facto demotion.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for material damages may only be realized if she prevails on her substantive pleas […]. Inasmuch as the present complaint succeeds on procedural grounds and the case will be remitted to the IOC, her claim for material damages remains in abeyance.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; material injury; procedural flaw;
Consideration 15
Extract:
Given this irregularity in the internal appeal procedure, the case will be remitted to the IOC to be heard by a newly constituted Joint Committee and for a new decision to be taken by the Executive Director on its opinion.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; procedural flaw;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal is not satisfied that the complainant has articulated the injury she suffered as a result of the procedural irregularities leading to the setting aside of the decision, no award of compensation for moral damages which she seeks will be made.
Keywords:
moral injury; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4431
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a decision of the Administrative Council introducing new rules for employees of the European Patent Office concerning the right to strike.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In concluding that the internal appeal was irreceivable, the Appeals Committee rejected any suggestion that CA/D 5/13 had an immediate and adverse effect on the complainant. However the gist of the complainant’s argument in relation to Article 65(1)(c) was that it had had such an effect and, at least quite clearly implicitly, on his (and his colleagues’) right to strike. The Tribunal, in its Judgment 3761, consideration 14, made clear that a general decision may, in certain circumstances, be impugned if it immediately and adversely affects individual rights. The complainant’s argument involved such a contention. The conclusion of the Appeals Committee that his appeal was manifestly irreceivable failed to consider this question and was thus legally flawed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; internal appeal; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4418
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the Administration’s failure to respect the statutory time limit for the submission of documents to the General Advisory Committee for the purposes of consultation prior to the adoption of a New Pension Scheme and a corresponding Salary Savings Plan for employees taking up their duties with the EPO on or after 1 January 2009.
Considerations 6-7 and 11
Extract:
There are numerous judgments of the Tribunal concerning the legal consequences of the failure of an organisation to consult with representative bodies before decisions are made by the organisation and what relief should be granted.
In recent cases concerning the EPO where failure to consult had been established, on some occasions decisions have been set aside or quashed (see, for example, Judgment 3522) but, on other occasions, they have not (see, for example, Judgment 4385).
[…]
In the present case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the contentious October 2008 decisions should be quashed. The decisions were tainted only with a procedural flaw of lesser importance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3522, 4385
Keywords:
consultation; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4229
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the World Food Programme, challenges the decision to maintain the decision not to renew his contract, and to award him material and moral damages instead of reinstatement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned decision, the Tribunal considers that the award of 70,000 euros, which the Organization paid to the complainant for the lost opportunity to be considered for renewal, was reasonable. Accordingly, it will be unnecessary to award him any further sum in this regard. Although in the impugned decision the Director-General purported to “set aside” the decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the fact remains that the complainant was separated from service without a valid reason and was not reinstated. It is perhaps this, above all, that justifies the significant amount of damages awarded to him by the Director-General. There is no other basis for awarding further damages for the invalid 2012 PACE appraisal report and the unlawful decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment.
Keywords:
fixed-term; formal flaw; loss of opportunity; material damages; non-renewal of contract; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4111
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, 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, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded. This plea is well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4109
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, 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, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4108
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, 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, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Inasmuch as the complainant challenges a disciplinary decision, it is recalled that consistent precedent has it that such decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3872
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; discretion; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4058
127th Session, 2019
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
Though the complainant raised the issue of conflict of interest of the Head of the Legal Service and the Head of Administration and Personnel, neither the Appeals Board nor the Secretary General in his final decision addressed this fundamental issue.
The existence of the above-mentioned conflict of interest is enough of a vitiating procedural flaw to require the setting aside of the decisions [...].
Keywords:
conflict of interest; final decision; internal appeals body; procedural flaw;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
