Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2011/069, Morin

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Nature of misconduct charges: Although technically not criminal charges, a misconduct charge may carry overtones of criminal proceedings, where rights attendant to a fair trial attach. Equality of arms: equality of arms may be seen to be an indivisible element of a fair trial, requiring that a fair balance exist between parties involved in litigation. The principle warrants the assurance that each party to a dispute be able to prepare and present his or her case fully and adequately before the court.Outcome: The Tribunal found that the conditions of access proposed by the Respondent would result in a fair outcome which balances the interests of justice, and the Applicant was granted access to the documents he sought, subject to these conditions. The parties had agreed during the course of proceedings that the Applicant would be granted access to the material in a secure setting. However, the Respondent argued that, due to the strictly confidential nature of the material access was being granted to, the Applicant and his Counsel should not be allowed to take any notes made from the review of this material out from the secure room in which the materials was reviewed. The parties agreed that the Tribunal should determine and rule on this issue.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant appealed a decision denying him access to certain information that he contended was needed to prepare an informed and adequate response to allegations of misconduct that were brought against him.

Legal Principle(s)

Requests for confidentiality: where such a request is made, the underlying premise is that the request is legitimate and made in good faith: that the Organization has a bona fide belief that the information deserves protection by means of a court order due to its confidentiality and sensitivity.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Morin
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type