Whistle-blower (880,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Whistle-blower
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4476

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who claims to be entitled to whistleblower status and requests the protection afforded thereby, challenges the failure to respond to his letter reporting what he considers to be unlawful by particular Court officials.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; whistle-blower;
  

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal finds that the ICC was negligent in failing to provide an explicit response to the complainant’s request to the President of the Assembly of States Parties on 16 March 2017 until a letter was sent to him on 16 June 2017, three months later.
  Such a delay cannot, of course, be regarded as unreasonable in absolute terms in respect of the processing of ordinary administrative requests, and it is important to point out that, contrary to what both parties to the dispute appear to consider, exceeding the 60-day period following the notification of a claim to which Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal refers is not in itself unlawful, but merely gives rise to an implied decision rejecting the claim.
  However, the Tribunal considers that a request to be granted whistleblower status is inherently urgent and must be examined with particular speed, regardless of its merits, so that the official concerned can receive the protection afforded thereby as quickly as possible should the request prove warranted, or, at the very least, be informed of the decision taken on the matter.

  Keywords:

  administrative delay; negligence; whistle-blower;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  These various provisions make plain that, contrary to the complainant’s argument that whistleblower status should be granted to any official who reports any acts provided that she or he has done so in good faith, entitlement to that status is also subject to the condition that the acts reported potentially constitute misconduct as defined above. While it is clearly not for the authority that will take a decision on a request for protection made by an official who presents her- or himself as a whistleblower to determine, at this stage, whether that official’s report of potential misconduct is well founded, it cannot grant such a request if it appears that, by their very nature, the acts in question could not be characterised as misconduct.

  Keywords:

  whistle-blower;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4376

  
  131st Session, 2021
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges WIPO’s alleged failure to take appropriate measures to protect him under its Whistleblower Protection Policy after he had made a report of misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; whistle-blower;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4247

  
  129th Session, 2020
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The complainant [...] requested a copy of the [...] report of alleged misconduct and the identity of the person who made this report. Before the Tribunal, the complainant focuses on the Administration’s refusal to disclose the identity of the reporter of the suspected misconduct and contends that this raises a presumption of prejudice and bias as does the refusal to disclose the requested documents. In the absence of compelling reasons justifying the disclosure of the identity of the reporter of suspected misconduct, this request is also rejected. As stated in the Internal Oversight Charter at Paragraph 15, reports of possible misconduct to the Director, IOD, shall be received on a confidential basis and may also be made anonymously. As well, the IOD’s Intranet site specifically provides that the reporting of suspected misconduct may be made confidentially or anonymously. Additionally, contrary to the complainant’s assertion, the identity of the reporter is entirely irrelevant in relation to the nature of the allegations of misconduct by the complainant.

  Keywords:

  confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; whistle-blower;