Evidence (144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Evidence
Total judgments found: 243
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >
Judgment 4106
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to apply to him the sanction of discharge.
Consideration 12
Extract:
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3872, under 2, “[c]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3757, 3872
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 16
Extract:
Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3831, consideration 28, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 4091
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he complainant is asking the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence. As stated in Judgment 3593, under 12, the Tribunal has consistently held:
“[...] that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.”
(See also Judgments 3995, under 7, 3882, under 13, and 3682, under 8.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 3995
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; judicial review; manifest error; testimony;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The UPU submits that the transcripts of the April 2018 meetings of the Council of Administration annexed to the complainant’s submissions are irreceivable as they are not official transcripts. It asserts that these transcripts were made by the complainant, and that the Summary Record provided by the Secretary General of the Council of Administration, which was not prepared in transcript format, is the only official record of the meetings of the Council of Administration. The Tribunal acknowledges that the contested annexes are unofficial documents but observes that although the UPU states that these documents were not “confirmed or verified”, it does not contest specifically any part of them.
Keywords:
evidence;
Judgment 4026
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4024
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Considerations 6-9
Extract:
[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7). [...]
In the Tribunal’s view, there was sufficient evidence upon which the Joint Appeals Board could have concluded, as it did, that the reclassification process was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of AM.II/3. The Tribunal also notes that reasons were given for the decision not to reclassify the complainant’s post. In short, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the results of the evaluation or of the reclassification exercise involved a mistaken conclusion (see Judgment 3589, consideration 4). In the foregoing premises, the complainant was not financially disadvantaged by the decision not to reclassify her post.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3589
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4019
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a promotion in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
In response to its request that Eurocontrol forward the Promotion Board’s report on the disputed promotion exercise in order that it might examine it in camera, the Tribunal was informed that the Board had not drawn up any such reports since 2010. This practice, which is unusual to say the least, makes it impossible for the Tribunal to ascertain whether the complainant’s merits were in fact examined by the Board, as the defendant organisation alleges. However, even if this had been the case, which is extremely doubtful in light of the submissions in the file, the examination would have been distorted by the absence of any support for the promotion proposal from the complainant’s supervisors during the consultations preceding the Board’s deliberations, which was due to the above-mentioned administrative error.
This procedural flaw breached the complainant’s right to benefit from a fair and informed comparison of her merits with those of other servants who were eligible for the same grade promotion, which renders unlawful the decision taken with regard to her at the end of the promotion exercise.
Keywords:
evidence;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant’s argument is that the decision of the President was based on evidence “not available to the complainant”. However this plea conflates evidence with the record of evidence. It is not suggested by the complainant in his pleas that he or his legal representatives did not attend the oral hearing. Accordingly, he was aware of the evidence and it was thus available to him even if, as a matter of fact, he had not been furnished with a transcript. This plea is unfounded and is rejected.
Keywords:
due process; evidence;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]t is not for the Tribunal to assume the role of fact finder and determine, itself, whether the case is made out that the complainant was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Rather the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether “a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact”, in this case the President.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; investigation; judicial review; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The first topic concerns the provision to the Appeals Committee of a memorandum setting out the reasons of the Director, CIO for not accepting the complainant’s reassignment to the position of Chief, Global Operations Branch, CIO. The FAO does not contest that the document was provided to the Committee but not the complainant but notes, as the Appeals Committee did in its report, that the document was marked “strictly confidential”. However this does not provide a basis for exceptionally not providing the complainant with a copy of a document, and potentially an important document, in adversarial proceedings such as the internal appeal where the document is relied on by the Organization (see, for example, Judgments 3688, consideration 29, 3586, consideration 16, and 3862, consideration 11). The complainant was entitled to see the evidence advanced by the FAO in the internal appeal in order to equip him to provide rebutting evidence or to otherwise question the evidence or comment on it. The complainant was denied this opportunity. He is entitled to moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 3688, 3862
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; evidence;
Judgment 3919
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director-General’s decision to reject her claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Considerations 13 & 14
Extract:
Contrary to WHO’s assertion, there is no evidence to support its contention of the ACCC having made a thorough analysis. [...]
[I]t is observed that in arriving at the conclusion that there were no valid reasons for the claim to be accepted for consideration, the Director-General did not take into consideration that the progressive nature of the complainant’s illness and all of her relevant surrounding personal circumstances presented valid reasons for making the claim for compensation on the date that she did.
Keywords:
compensation; evidence; illness;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal relevantly stated the following in Judgment 1775, consideration 7:
“Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; evidence; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3882
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with immediate effect for misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is settled principle that the organization must prove its case against a complainant in a disciplinary matter such as this beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant argues that the FAO did not meet that standard of proof in the present case. The Tribunal’s approach when this issue is raised was stated, for example, in consideration 14 of Judgment 3649, as follows:
“At this juncture, it is useful to reiterate the well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. It is equally well settled that the ‘Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; evidence;
Consideration 9
Extract:
As far as the admissibility of the documents is concerned, the Tribunal’s case law states that its practice is to consider any items that are material to a case, but that it will not use a confidential document to the complainant’s detriment unless she or he had the opportunity to see it beforehand (see Judgment 2062, under 5). It has further stated that an item which is material to a case will be admissible unless it was obtained by deceit, or its authenticity is in dispute (see Judgment 1637, under 6). The complainant does not challenge the authenticity of the documents and there is no evidence that they were obtained by deceit.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1637, 2062
Keywords:
evidence;
Judgment 3880
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s finding of misconduct and the imposition of the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for two weeks, and claims excessive delay in the disciplinary and internal appeal proceedings.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
It is “well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed” (Judgment 3649, under 14). It is also well established that a staff member accused of misconduct is presumed to be innocent (Judgment 2879, under 11) and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (Judgment 2849, under 16). It is observed that the FAO did not cite nor is there any support in the case law for its position before the Appeals Committee that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard did not apply in this case. Moreover, it conflates two distinct parts of the misconduct process: the finding of misconduct (if proven beyond a reasonable doubt) and the subsequent imposition of an appropriate sanction for the misconduct.
Based on a reading of the Appeals Committee’s report and the Director-General’s impugned decision, it appears that in each instance the standard of proof applied was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of misconduct. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct is a far less onerous evidentiary burden than the requisite “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. The application of the incorrect standard of proof is a fundamental error of law and requires, on this ground alone, that the impugned decision be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2849, 2879, 3649
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 3876
124th Session, 2017
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the payment, after his death, of a pension for a surviving spouse to his wife and of an orphan’s pension to two children of whom he claims to be the biological father. He also claims allowances for dependent children.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t was incumbent upon [the complainant] submit to the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings any evidence he considers to be material in support of his case (see Judgments 1248, under 7, and 3678, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1248, 3678
Keywords:
evidence;
Judgment 3872
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Considerations 2 and 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal determines that the complainant’s plea that there was a conspiracy against him is unfounded as he has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate it. The Tribunal recalls that WHO bears the burden of proof in a case such as this. However, inasmuch as the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence, its approach when the issue of the burden of proof is raised is to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see Judgment 3649, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3649, 3757
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
Judgment 3865
124th Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment due to the redundancy of her post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[O]rdinarily it is a matter for the parties to decide what evidence they provide to the Tribunal and it is not for the Tribunal to say what evidence it requires. There is nothing about this case that would warrant a departure from that essential feature of the adversarial process.
Keywords:
evidence;
Judgment 3863
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 9
Extract:
While what Mr M. said in the conversation with Mr K. about the identity of the person who told him these things might be viewed as hearsay, such evidence may nonetheless be admissible and it is simply a question of evaluating its probative value (see Judgment 2771, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771
Keywords:
evidence;
Consideration 18
Extract:
The case law of the Tribunal establishes that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against her or him. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2700, consideration 6, cited recently in Judgments 3688, 3613, 3586, 3490, 3380, 3347, 3290, 3285, 3272 and 3264, for example). The complainant is also entitled to have an opportunity to test the evidence and produce evidence to the contrary (see, for example, Judgment 2786, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2786
Keywords:
confidential evidence; due process; evidence;
Judgment 3862
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Without descending into detail, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was open to the ICC not to disclose certain information to the complainant because of the pending criminal proceedings (see Judgments 1756, consideration 10, and 2700, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2700
Keywords:
confidential evidence; evidence;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The case law of the Tribunal establishes that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against her or him. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2700, consideration 6, cited recently in Judgments 3688, 3613, 3586, 3490, 3380, 3347, 3290, 3285, 3272 and 3264, for example).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700
Keywords:
confidential evidence; due process; evidence;
Consideration 30
Extract:
The parties have made additional submissions with respect to the confidentiality of some of the pleadings and evidence that have been submitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken note of these submissions and has referred to the evidence that it considers necessary in order to achieve justice between the parties.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; evidence;
Judgment 3854
124th Session, 2017
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not award him compensation for a service-incurred disability.
Consideration 9
Extract:
For a decision maker (or an advisory body) to say they place “limited weight” on a document or testimony can beg the question of the true reliance placed on that document or testimony. Obviously it involves placing some weight on the document or testimony.
Keywords:
evidence;
Judgment 3852
124th Session, 2017
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal finds the claim that information was illegally collected from the complainant’s electronic devices to be unfounded. The electronic devices, which were inspected, were her work computer and the work scanner for her department. These devices are the property of the OPCW and the complainant had to acknowledge a disclaimer prior to logging in to her work computer.
Keywords:
evidence;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >
|
