Home

Lee has demonstrated to the Tribunal that all illegal recordings have been removed from the public domain and destroyed, it will hold Mr. Lee in contempt of court and prohibit him from attending any of its future public hearings. 6. (...) Above this link, a disclaimer stated that “[a]ny person wishing to attend the public hearing is advised to join the virtual public gallery in a Teams meeting via the link provided herewith before the start time of the hearing” and that “[p]lease be advised that no public will be allowed into the virtual public gallery after the hearing has started”. 8. (...) Lee is held in contempt of court and prohibited from attending any future public hearings of the undersigned Judge until he has demonstrated to the Tribunal that all illegal recordings from the hearing on 4 November 2020 have been removed from the public domain and destroyed.

However, this administrative instruction was not applicable at the time of publication, which was in November 2007, and ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.4 of 12 February 1996 (“Attribution of authorship in United Nations documents, publications and other official papers”) instead applies. (...) Attribution of authorship will not be considered in the following categories: … c) Public information material: brochures, pamphlets, press releases, flyers, catalogues and other materials designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities. (...) UNDT/2010/093 Page 4 of 16 purpose of the present instruction, public information material offered in publications may have attribution; … E.

Publication of prejudicial information about a person will not attract liability for contempt if proceedings involving that person are not yet pending (although a publication in this situation may attract liability on other legal grounds, for example, a defamation action in the domestic courts). (...) Thus, contrary to what the Applicant states, there are no matters that are sub judice, the publication of which may give rise to contempt of court. (...) It is essentially a question of weighing the public interest against the private interest of the applicant (Yisma Order No. 63 (NY/2011)). 18.

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.

The starting point is that all oral proceedings shall be held in public. The question is whether there are exceptional circumstances in this case requiring that the oral proceedings be closed. 5. (...) There are particular dynamics relating to sexual harassment which are referred to in the Secretary-General’s publications on this matter and I believe that it would inhibit the bringing of sexual harassment claims if the complainants believed that as matter of course they would be required to give evidence in public. 7. (...) In this case the Applicant and his wife are entitled to remain, but the general public should be excluded during the complainants’ evidence. 8.

The subsequent paragraphs are renumbered accordingly. Section I.D.2 (Public access to filed documents) is amended to read as follows: 2. Public access to filed documents 14. Documents filed with the Registry are available to the public, unless the Appeals Tribunal orders that the whole or part of a document be kept confidential. 15. (...) The Order was originally issued on 16 March 2012. 2. Public access to filed documents 15. Documents filed with the Registry are confidential and are not available to the public. 16.

The Applicant argues, inter alia, that the publicity of the proceedings would negatively impact her health. (...) In the present case, the Tribunal is persuaded by the Applicant’s contention that the publicity of the proceedings is likely to cause additional stress, thereby impacting her already delicate health condition. It therefore finds it reasonable to grant the motion for anonymity and confidentiality from the public on medical grounds. Request for filing of documents and information ex parte from the Respondent 8.

The application is made pursuant to Article 16, sub-section 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, which reads, The oral proceedings shall be held in public unless the judge hearing the case decides, at his or her own initiative or at the request of one of the parties, that exceptional circumstances require that the oral proceedings be closed”. 3. (...) I respect the respondent’s right to alert the Tribunal as soon as it becomes apparent that this is a confidential matter and the Tribunal will take immediate steps to make certain that any confidential matters of that sort are not heard in open public and that they are covered, in addition, by non-publication orders. (...) So, for those reasons, I decline the respondent’s application to order that this case be closed. It is open to the public. The public is entitled to hear it except for those times when the Tribunal is asked to specifically exclude the public from hearing certain portions of the evidence.

UNDT/2010/205 actions; and that UNICEF had already issued a number of public releases concerning the outcome of the investigation. (...) Furthermore, the Respondent did not contribute to the continuing adverse publicity and, in fact, took Page 13 of 15 Case No. (...) The Applicant’s other pleas, including with respect to costs and further public statements by UNICEF in relation to his case, are rejected.

However, these candidates could be admitted in the job family of Public Information for which “Languages” was a specified eligibility criterion. 12. (...) UNDT/2015/044 Page 6 of 32 requirements for Public Information, the delay in clarifying the situation has decreased this expectation. 24. (...) In his first communication with ETS, dated 4 November 2013, on the subject of the Public Information examination, the Applicant made it clear that he was awaiting the reconsideration of the decision about the YPP in Administration before taking up the offer to take part in Public Information.