Home

Siciliano only on jurisdictional grounds, that U.S. criminal proceedings are public, and UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL D’APPEL DES NATIONS UNIES 2 of 3 that Mr. Siciliano’s name as associated with that criminal case will remain part of the public record irrespective of the outcome of his appeal before the Appeals Tribunal. 4. (...) (Signed) Weicheng Lin, Registrar 6 Utkina, supra note 3, para. 19 (denying a request for redaction of information already in the public domain).

Also, privilege exists under the common law principle of public interest immunity, where for example information gathered by the state cannot be disclosed if the court decides that this would be damaging to the public interest. The probative value of the impugned evidence however must be weighed by the court against the public interest sought to be protected. Probative Value 14. (...) The Tribunal is satisfied that no such public interest has been made out by the Respondent in this case.

It allows for openness, accountability and good governance, which indeed are the overarching principles of this Organization. Public hearings aid the aim of transparency and accountability of the internal justice system and therefore any need to hold private hearings must be grounded on legitimate grounds. In the present case, the Applicants’ concerns must be weighed against the public interest of having a public hearing. 8. The Tribunal considers that the observation by interns working in the legal offices of the Respondent does not pose a threat to the integrity of the proceedings being compromised by leaks to the press or that their observation amounts to exceptional circumstances that would require the oral proceedings in these two cases to be closed. (...) Only the parties, the Registry and Information Technology Support Staff, the legal interns and the witness shall be allowed to attend the virtual hearing.

What the exact meaning of “Public International Organization” as used in question 18 of the PHP is. (...) Is the exact definition of “Public International Organization” as used in question 18 clear enough for the Applicant to have understood what was expected of her? (...) To this, the Respondent submitted that, the term Public International Organization is intended to mean the United Nations Common System.

Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization (Respondent) ORDER No. 146 (2013) 1. (...) Second, he argues that Articles 6 and 8 of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal require public proceedings unless “exceptional circumstances require the proceedings to be closed” and Mr. (...) Moreover, the “open court” tradition recognizes that bans on the publication of proceedings should not be done merely to protect a party from 2 of 2 embarrassment or against a remote or speculative danger.

Article 20 of the Rules provides that publication of judgments will “normally include the names of the parties”. (...) Further, electronic publication creates records that are potentially permanent in their many forms and not possible to eradicate in their original form. (...) This Tribunal cannot direct others or other organisations to anonymise their publications. 20. Mr. Russo-Got’s grounds for anonymisation appear to rest on the collective effect of the publication of these six judgments.

As the Appeals Tribunal previously held:1 [O]ne of the purposes or goals of the new system for the administration of justice is to assure that the judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are published and made available to the Organization’s staff and the general public. Public dissemination of the appellate judgments helps to assure there is transparency in the operations of the Appeals Tribunal. (...) Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization, Judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, Lee v. (...) Kadri also claims that he will suffer adverse consequences by reason of the publication of his name, such claims are speculative.

He notes the common practice of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and the Appeals Tribunal, as well as legal systems generally, to make public the identities of litigants absent countervailing considerations. (...) If confidentiality attached to the staff member’s identity in each case, there would be no transparency regarding the operations of the Organization, which would be contrary to one of the General Assembly’s purposes and goals for the internal justice system. Moreover, any discomfort she may have with the publication of the Judgment is not grounds to grant her motion. (...) Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judgment No. 2014-UNAT-456, para. 20 (internal citations omitted).

The justification for the motion is set out as follows: “[The Applicant] is a deeply religious woman […] and would be highly embarrassed by further public disclosure of the case. It would defeat the purpose of the settlement of the matter to subject her and her family to further public ridicule”. 11. (...) Has the request been made timely? How would the public interest of open and transparent justice be served if a redaction of names is granted? (...) The foregoing provisions make clear that one of the purposes or goals of the new system for the administration of justice is to assure that the judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are published and made available to the Organization’s staff and the general public. Public dissemination of the appellate judgments helps to assure there is transparency in the operations of the Appeals Tribunal.

On 18 November 2020, the Applicant emailed the New York Registry of the Dispute Tribunal stating: “In accordance with the international law, especially the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“EUGDPR”) please remove all my personal data from your public web site”. 3. (...) The Applicant alleges that the concerned judgments contain sensitive information such as violations of human rights, bribery of officials of the United Nations, forgery of documents “by both parties”, “the adoption by a labor dispute court of decisions that can only be taken by a criminal court”, and “some of the decisions are in process to be considered by other International Court”. 6. The Applicant further states that “there is a technical issue consist of no accord to make public documents by using google services of indexing, which is in contrast with international law (sic.)”. (...) The Tribunal further recalls that the Appeals Tribunal found that when the name of an appellant has been in the public domain for a very long time owing to the Cases Nos.: UNDT/NY/2019/006 UNDT/NY/2019/007 UNDT/NY/2019/027 Order No.: 027 (NY/2022) Page 4 of 4 publication of many court documents relating to their cases in the Dispute Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal, it would therefore be pointless to order the redaction of their name (Kadri, 2017-UNAT-772, para. 15). 14.