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 1456
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Tribunal will disregard documents produced by the parties on the preparatory work for the material rules. They are fragmentary and the scant information they contain is unlikely to prove helpful. "In construing the rules the Tribunal is bound to take an objective view and pay heed, in line with the method approved in international law, to their wording, context, purport and purpose."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence; interpretation; interpretation of rules; purpose; submissions; written rule;
Judgment 1450
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
The complainants "quite wittingly consented [...] to the contracts of service they were offered and were aware that, being for a fixed term ,the contracts could not run beyond the period of two years they set. [They may not] object a posteriori to an essential term of the contract, viz. its duration, in an attempt to have it converted to a permanent appointment. They have adduced not a jot of evidence to suggest that the organisation acted in any but its own legitimate interests either when the contracts were made out or when they came to an end."
Keywords:
abuse of power; acceptance; contract; duration of appointment; evidence; fixed-term; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; permanent appointment; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1445
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was charged with making false statements to collect certain benefits. He says the organisation's policy was easy going and alleges breach of equal treatment. "There is no evidence to show just what the practice that the complainant relies on may have been: it does not seem to be a general one. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that those who he says benefited from it were all in the same position in fact and law as he. Indeed [...] his position in fact was peculiar to him since it was he who processed claims to the refund of education expenses. So he may not claim the same treatment as other officials".
Keywords:
equal treatment; evidence; general principle; practice;
Judgment 1437
79th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant was transferred against his wishes to another unit. Thereis no reason to regard his transfer as hidden disciplinary action or to attribute it to his staff union work, it having been taken in the organization's interests.
Keywords:
abuse of power; evidence; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; staff union activity; transfer;
Judgment 1436
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As was said for example in Judgment 1223, the Tribunal will not interfere with comparison of candidates in a competition. Only when it appears that the choice rests on a mistake of fact or law or that there has probably been misuse of authority will the Tribunal order the defendant to produce further evidence so that it may review such comparison."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; candidate; case law; competition; due process; evidence; further submissions; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; presumption of innocence; qualifications; selection procedure;
Judgment 1415
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1413, consideration 6.
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review;
Judgment 1414
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1413, consideration 6.
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review;
Judgment 1413
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant's charge of "discriminatory and unfair treatment is in too general terms to be entertained".
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review;
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 35
Extract:
"There will be misuse of authority where the administration exercises it for some purpose other than those prescribed by law or, to put it more broadly, those that the general interest requires. A staff member who pleads misuse of authority, and the Tribunal that allows the plea, must be able to identify the improper purposes for which the authority [...] has been exercised."
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; definition; evidence; misuse of authority;
Consideration 36
Extract:
The complainant objects to the actuarial method which the organisation used in a study of the pension fund's foreseeable costs. "Like any public authority, the EPO enjoys a presumption in its favour - especially when it is taking technical measures and it has done thorough preparatory work - that its choice of actuarial method is the most suitable and the fairest. [...] It is of course open to a staff member under a system of administrative law to challenge the organisation's choice, but he must be able to adduce evidence to show why the chosen method, when compared with others, may suffer from technical flaws that should have disqualified it."
Keywords:
actuarial valuation; burden of proof; contributions; discretion; evidence; increase; judicial review; mistake of fact; organisation; pension; reckoning; right of appeal;
Judgment 1391
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Decisions taken by the organisation are subject to review on grounds such as bias, bad faith, malice and abuse of authority. When seeking to defend his interests by impugning any such decision, an employee is entitled to allege and attempt to establish such grounds. A fair decision cannot be reached upon such matters by an internal appeals body or by this Tribunal if witnesses, parties and their representatives are unable to speak candidly and without the risk of incurring a penalty for what they may say, and especially if one party is unduly inhibited by the fear that failure to prove his case my make him liable to disciplinary action by the other party."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; complainant; complaint; disciplinary measure; evidence; freedom of speech; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; misuse of authority; submissions; testimony; tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was subject to disciplinary action for having made statements, some of them before the Tribunal, which allegedly impaired the organisation's and the Tribunal's reputations. The Disciplinary Committee asked whether the punishment of offensive remarks "for which there is no clear justification supported by evidence" would infringe the complainant's rights. The Tribunal holds that "such a test laid an undue burden on the complainant in that if he was to avoid the risk of disciplinary action he must prove the truth of his allegations. No such burden should have been put on him. The mere failure to prove the truth of his allegations did not mean that he had either abused his freedom of speech or forfeited the immunity or privilege of judicial proceedings."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; criteria; disciplinary measure; evidence; freedom of speech; organisation's reputation; submissions; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1384
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was accused of removing computer equipment from the work place. The organization accordingly decided not to renew his fixed-term appointment. After carrying out an inquiry, the regional director submitted a first report which "showed that there was at most mere suspicion that the complainant might have been involved. There was no basis on which the organization could contend that the charge of theft had been satisfactorily proved. What it did in effect was to reverse the burden of proof by expecting the complainant to show that hisconduct was 'spotless'."
Keywords:
burden of proof; conduct; contract; evidence; fixed-term; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; presumption of innocence;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant was accused of removing computer equipment from the work place. For that reason the organization decided not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The decision not to renew the complainant's contract was based on loss of confidence consequent upon the finding of misconduct. That finding was based on an error of law as to the burden of proof; rules of procedure relating to the right of defence were seriously violated; essential facts were not taken into consideration; and clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts. so the finding cannot stand, and the plea of loss of confidence which the organization based thereon must be rejected."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; conduct; contract; disregard of essential fact; evidence; fixed-term; misconduct; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
Consideration 15
Extract:
Vide Judgment 999, consideration 4
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999
Keywords:
case law; evidence; misconduct; right to reply;
Judgment 1380
78th Session, 1995
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant "did not suffer any injury which hampered her career and is therefore not entitled to any award of damages. The mere fact that a decision was initially flawed does not suffice to warrant awarding her damages for moral injury. The flaw was [later] corrected [...] to be entitled to moral damages she must show that she has suffered more severe injury than that which an improper decision ordinarily causes."
Keywords:
burden of proof; criteria; damages; decision; evidence; flaw; formal flaw; lack of evidence; lack of injury; moral injury; professional injury;
Judgment 1377
78th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant seeks review of a judgment in which the tribunal dismissed his case as time-barred. He alleges the existence of a new fact which would at the time have led the Tribunal to declare his complaint receivable. "The Tribunal rejects as incredible the evidence tendered by the complainant. Accordingly it applies the procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules and summarily dismisses the application as clearly devoid of merit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; evidence; lack of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; summary procedure;
Judgment 1373
77th Session, 1994
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Medical Board based its findings on the lack of "conclusive" evidence. "But that was not the standard of proof it was required to apply." Referring to Judgments 528 and 641, the Tribunal holds that what is required is no more "than a balance of probability in favour of what the complainant is alleging.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 528, 641
Keywords:
burden of proof; case law; evidence; medical board; standard of proof;
Judgment 1350
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
[The complainant] is [...] unsuccessful in his claim to reinstatement in a post in the Natural Sciences Sector or, failing that, any other suitable post. Despite the Organization's mistakes it is plain on the evidence [...] that the complainant would have had no prospect of renewal on normal expiry of his prematurely terminated appointment.
Keywords:
evidence; reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 1340
77th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The onus of proof lies on the organisation to bear out its allegations and insinuations and not, as the organisation submits, on the complainant to show them to be untrue. In the absence of any proof of their accuracy, the assumption must be that they are untrue."
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; lack of evidence; moral injury; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 1323
76th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The WHO appointed an external candidate to a position which the complainant had applied for. On the grounds of privilege the organization offered no evidence to the Board or the Tribunal of the external candidate's qualifications. "The Tribunal does not accept that the disclosure of a candidate's identity and qualifications may [...] inhibit the free expression of views by members of selection committees or prejudice the interests of other candidates. [...] The external candidate's qualifications were of essential importance to the Selection Committee in making its choice and to any appeal against the appointment made." No such documents may be withheld from the Tribunal.
Keywords:
candidate; confidential evidence; evidence; internal appeals body; internal candidate; open competition; selection board; submissions;
Judgment 1305
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The complainant is unable to provide any proof of the date on which he says he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. "The Tribunal observes that its Rules of Court are liberal in that for the purpose of reckoning the time limit Article 6(3) [*] takes the date of dispatch and thereby relieves the complainant of liability for any faulty transmittal after dispatch. "That makes it the more important to establish the date of dispatch beyond doubt in each case. [...] The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence of the dispatch of his complaint. [...] Although the Tribunal does not question the sincerity of the complainant [...] it cannot treat [his] assertions as if they were objective evidence: if it did so it would be affording an opportunity for fraudulent evasion of time limits."
*superseded by Article 4(2) of the Tribunal's Rules as in force since 1 May 1994
Keywords:
complaint; date; evidence; formal requirements; iloat statute; lack of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1262
75th Session, 1993
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
The complainant objects to a decision not to extend his appointment. "The complainant was involved in the layout and design of the staff magazine, which, he says, was at times critical of the ESO. [...] The charge of victimisation, which is easy enough to make, has to be supported by serious evidence. The complainant has failed to discharge the burden that lies on him to prove the charge against the Observatory. For one thing, he was not even an official of the Staff Association. For another, his allegation that he was victimised merely because he helped with the publication of the magazine is unsupported by a shred of evidence."
Keywords:
burden of proof; contract; decision; evidence; fixed-term; freedom of speech; harassment; hidden disciplinary measure; non-renewal of contract; staff representative;
Judgment 1176
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11 and 13
Extract:
Eurocontrol asked the complainant to supply proof that the dependant for whom he was seeking health insurance had no means of gaining cover for sickness under another public health scheme in keeping with Article 2(2) of Rule No. 10 of the Staff Regulations. "But since what is required is disproof - viz. proof that there is no coverage under this or that scheme - Eurocontrol may not consistently lay the burden on the insured member. If it did so, there would be a danger of making the rule unworkable. A fortiori it may not, after duly determining on all the material evidence at its disposal that someone may be treated as a dependent child, raise the question of possible coverage by another public scheme whenever the insured member happens to claim refund or to seek prior authorisation of expenditure."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 2(2) of Rule no. 10 of the Staff Regulations
Keywords:
burden of proof; dependant; dependent child; evidence; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical expenses; organisation's duties;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >
|
