|
|
 |
|
|
Fishing expedition (940,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Fishing expedition
Total judgments found: 22
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]n her rejoinder the complainant requests access to all information pertaining to previous reclassification decisions on which she relies in order to demonstrate the existence of an established practice. This request [constitutes] an impermissible fishing expedition […].
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4530
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the effective date of termination of his appointment, which had previously been deferred on a number of occasions due to his sick leave.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant seeks the disclosure of “any and all documents, reports, correspondence, e-mails, notes, records, memoranda, letters, notices, file contents, minutes, minuted phone calls, or any other documents or items in the possession of the Administration that in any way describes, comments on, relates or refers to, controls, records, and/or evidences, in general or specifically, the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment, in particular medical records or reports indicating that the [c]omplainant was fit to return to work at the time of his termination, as well as the medical assessment made by the WHO Staff Physician purportedly relied upon by the GBA in its report (with which assessment to date the [c]omplainant has never been provided)”. The request is rejected as it is cast in such wide and general terms that it constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 3, and 4086, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4086, 4247
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4463
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the disclosure of his medical situation.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the request for production of the file is based on extremely general allegations and is therefore merely a “fishing expedition”, which the relevant case law does not allow (see, in particular, Judgments 2097, consideration 23, and 2497, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097, 2497
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4357
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s pleas in relation to the production of documents are of substance. It is sufficient to refer only to the request of the complainant in his statement of appeal dated 12 December 2016. Quite explicitly he sought, inter alia, the selection reports for vacancy announcements [...]. In its report [...] the Appeals Board explained why it rejected this request. It said that “[n]one of the confidential selection report constitutes an essential document upon which the Impugned Decision not to shortlist the [complainant] for the position was based”. It also characterised other aspects of the request for the production of documents as a fishing expedition. This approach is plainly at odds with the Tribunal’s case law. What the complainant was seeking was evidence to which he was entitled, even if in a redacted form (see Judgment 4293, consideration 4, citing Judgment 4023, consideration 5). While these reports, as completed, are entirely unsupportive of one of his central arguments in these proceedings (who did the shortlisting), they could have been to the opposite effect. Moreover if they had been provided, the complainant may have abandoned this argument and concentrated on others. The Tribunal notes that these reports have been provided in these proceedings as a result of a request of the Tribunal. However, the complainant, who makes a clear distinction in the complaint form and in his submissions between moral and punitive damages, does not seek moral damages for that failure. This breach does not warrant, as sought by the complainant, an award of punitive damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023, 4293
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant’s request for the disclosure of documents is also rejected as it is cast in general, imprecise and speculative terms, which constitute an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 4086, under 9, and 3345, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3345, 4086
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
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 3
Extract:
The complainant submits that the Administration failed to produce documents that she had requested during the course of the internal appeal and reiterates the request in the complaint. The complainant asks the Administration to provide her with a vast array of documents including “reports, correspondence, e-mails, notes, records, memoranda, letters, notices, file contents, minutes, or any other documents or items in the possession of the Administration that may in any way describe, comment on, relate or refer to, control, record, and/or evidence, in general or specifically, the investigation of the alleged conduct” and “the decision to terminate her.” Particularly given the breadth of this request, it can only be characterised as an impermissible “fishing expedition” and is rejected (see Judgment 4086, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4086
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4086
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The application which was made for the production of documents is also dismissed because it is cast in the most general and imprecise terms which are an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 2510, under 7, and 3345, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510, 3345
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4085
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her harassment grievance.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant’s request for the disclosure of documents is rejected because, cast in the most general and imprecise terms, it is made on the speculative basis that something will be found in those documents to further her case. It constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 2510, under 7, and 3345, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510, 3345
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4084
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her and the appointment of another staff member without a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant applies for the disclosure of documents in these terms:
“The Complainant hereby requests that she be provided with true copies of the following documents or items simultaneously with the submission of the Administration’s Reply in order to allow for the Complainant to analyse and comment on same in her Rejoinder: any and all accounting records, documents, reports, correspondence, e-mails, notes, records, memoranda, letters, notices, file contents, minutes, minuted phone calls, or any other documents or items in the possession of the Administration that in any way describe, comment on, relate or refer to, control, record, and/or evidence, in general or specifically, the reclassification or establishment of the Complainant’s post. [...]”
The application is dismissed because, cast in these general and imprecise terms, it is based on the mere speculation that something will be found in those documents that will further the complainant’s case. It constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 2510, under 7, and 3345, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510, 3345
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 4080
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s request for the production of “all the information and reports relating to the accident involving Mr [C.]”[footnote omitted], being couched as it is in excessively broad and vague terms, amounts to a “fishing expedition”. The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the basis of such a request (see, for example, Judgments 2497, consideration 15, and 3486, consideration 2). The complainant’s request must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497, 3486
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 3868
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for a position for which he had applied.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant submits, as another plea of procedural impropriety, that the JAB’s lack of independence and impartiality is evidenced in its failure to rule in a timely manner on his motions to expunge evidence or to exclude statements. He refers to an occasion on which he tried to move the JAB to seek responses from the WTO on his list of questions and requests for documents. This is elucidated in his e-mail to the JAB’s Secretary, dated 9 September 2014, in which the complainant acknowledged receipt of the WTO’s written reply to his appeal. The complainant drew the Secretary’s attention to some 30 questions and 25 requests for documents attached to his appeal. He noted the WTO’s submission that these were irrelevant to the matter and that the application was a fishing expedition. He stated that “albeit unwittingly”, the WTO had in its reply responded to eight of his questions, but that two of the documents which it provided were too heavily redacted to be of any probative value. He stated that there were some 22 questions and 25 requests for documents which still remained outstanding and highlighted three sets of questions and requests to which he required responses. First, he referred to his request for information concerning Sub-Saharan African representation in the Rules Division and stated that it was hard to understand why the WTO had provided information concerning the number of such staff members throughout the Secretariat rather than to provide information of such persons in the Rules Division.
Keywords:
fishing expedition;
Judgment 3727
123rd Session, 2017
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose post was abolished following a restructuring exercise, challenges the new final decision taken by the Secretary General pursuant to Judgment 3208.
Consideration 18
Extract:
One [question] is a request by the complainant that the Federation produce certain documents. The request is expressed at a high level of generality and can properly be characterised as a “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgment 3419, consideration 6), and, for that reason, should be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 3595
121st Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges both the decision to separate him from service and his non-selection for a post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant requests oral proceedings and the disclosure of unspecified documents relating to this matter. In view of the abundant and sufficiently clear submissions and evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal considers that it is fully informed about the aspects of the case that are relevant to the outcome of the dispute and does not therefore deem it necessary to grant the request for oral proceedings. The complainant formulated his request for documents as “any and all” documents in relation to some events, without explaining their potential relevance. The case law provides that the Tribunal “will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant’s case” (see Judgment 2510, under 7), particularly when the request is made “in the most general terms which are tantamount to a fishing expedition” (see Judgment 3499, under 6, and the case law cited therein). For this reason, the Tribunal disallows the request for documents.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510, 3499
Keywords:
fishing expedition;
Judgment 3499
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the rejection of their appeal against the creation of the Ethics Office and the decision to transfer another staff member to the position of Chief Ethics Officer.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he complainants seek the production of documents. However they do so in the most general terms which are tantamount to a fishing expedition (see, for example, Judgments 2510, under 7, 2142, under 17)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142, 2510
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 3487
120th Session, 2015
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to allow a “Note for the File” to remain on his personal file.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant has requested the production of a large number of documents. That request is refused because it is cast in the most general terms and constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgment 2497, consideration 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 3486
120th Session, 2015
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant has requested the convening of a hearing. However, in view of the abundant and sufficiently clear submissions and evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal considers that it is fully informed about the case and does not therefore deem it necessary to grant this request.
In response to the request that the Tribunal order the production of various documents, the President of the Tribunal asked the WTO to produce one of them. As far as all the others are concerned, the request must be denied because it amounts to a “fishing expedition” which, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, cannot be accepted (see, for example, Judgments 2497, under 15, and 3345, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497, 3345
Keywords:
fishing expedition;
Judgment 3345
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as elected staff representatives, in their individual capacities as staff members and on behalf of thirty-six staff members employed under “long-term short-term contracts”, challenge the appropriateness of employment under such contracts and claim certain rights for such employees.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The first procedural issue is a request by the complainants for the production of documents. The request is cast in the most general terms and constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgment 2497, consideration 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition;
Judgment 2497
100th Session, 2006
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
Counsel asks the Tribunal, as he has in a number of other cases, to order the Organization to produce a large number of documents and files without any evidence either that such materials exist or that, if they do, they would provide relevant evidence. The Tribunal has previously (see Judgment 2097), and at the present session (see Judgment 2484), characterised such requests as “fishing expeditions” which it will not countenance. It does so again.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097, 2484
Keywords:
fishing expedition;
Judgment 2466
99th Session, 2005
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The main thrust of the complainant’s case is that after June 2001, when provision was made for separation packages for persons graded D.2 and above, other officials received more advantageous packages than he did. To this end, the complainant requests the Tribunal to conduct its own investigation and to call for certified copies of the agreements concerned. Given the confidential nature of those agreements, it follows that the complainant is unable to establish that those packages were more beneficial than his. Furthermore, he offers no evidence that any of the officials who received those packages were in the same or, even, in a comparable position to him in terms of employment history or status. As was said in Judgment 2142, without some evidence to this effect, “the Tribunal will not [...] itself undertake [...] a wholesale ‘fishing expedition’ based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up”. Accordingly, the complainant’s contentions with respect to unequal treatment must be rejected.
Keywords:
fishing expedition;
Judgment 2402
98th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
Contrary to the view expressed by the complainant, the Office did not show bad faith in dealing with the delicate situation in which it found itself, and it cannot be considered to have taken the decisions concerning her career in “retaliation”: the decisions concerning the MISA project and her planned missions to Mozambique were based on sound management concerns which the Tribunal cannot criticise. The posts offered to the complainant – whose contract stipulated that she could be transferred – matched her grade and skills, even though the drafting of the job description for the post in Dakar may have been somewhat inadequate. Furthermore, the complainant had no right to renewal of her contract and the Tribunal, which exercises only a limited power of review over decisions taken in such matters by the competent authority, finds no error of fact or of law in this case, nor any misuse of authority: although the Reports Board was in favour of renewal, the Organization was not bound by the Board’s recommendation and was entitled to draw the consequences of the complainant’s refusal of the transfer proposals that were made to her. The evidence most favourable to the complainant’s case does not support the conclusion that the decision not to renew her contract was taken in bad faith or in “retaliation” for her harassment grievance. Consequently, the requested public hearing and witness hearings are unnecessary. As regards the complainant’s request for the production of numerous documents, the Tribunal considers itself sufficiently informed by the existing submissions and sees no need, in view of the evidence already submitted by the parties, to authorise the “fishing expedition” sought by the complainant.
Keywords:
fishing expedition;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
