Recusal of a judge (972,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Recusal of a judge
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4701

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to defer the review of his contract’s extension.

  Considerations 1-2

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant submitted a letter requesting the recusal of two of the judges sitting on the panel this session deciding the present case and three other complaints filed by him. His grounds for the recusal are that the judges’ recurring participation in a succession of cases involving him and the uniformity of their orders dismissing all of his complaints raise substantial concerns about the right to a fair trial and their impartiality. Additionally, the complainant requests that the pending complaints be heard by a panel of judges without prior involvement in any of his cases, and that another judge who assumes the President’s responsibilities be appointed. The complainant has sought the recusal of the two judges in a previous case, and his application was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 4520, consideration 1.
  The principle of impartiality is an inherent element of the right to a fair trial, which is central to the operation of the Tribunal. As the Tribunal’s well-established case law states, ordinarily, except in cases of necessity, a judge will not be involved in adjudicating a case if there is a reasonable apprehension that she or he will not take a completely objective view owing to a risk of a lack of impartiality in her or his determination (see Judgments 4584, consideration 2, and 4520, consideration 1). A judge’s previous rulings or decisions alone is not a valid cause to challenge her or his impartiality, unless there is specific evidence suggestive of bias. Indeed, a judge has a duty to hear and determine a case allocated to her or him and a decision to recuse which was not properly founded would constitute a breach of that duty. The complainant primarily relies on his lack of success in previous proceedings and cannot present any circumstances which underpin a reasonable apprehension that the two judges might decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits. The mere fact that he was unsuccessful in previous proceedings before a panel in which the two judges participated does not warrant his application for the recusal of the two judges in subsequent proceedings involving him (see Judgments 4520, consideration 1, and 110, consideration 1). His request is therefore dismissed.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 110, 4520, 4584
  

  Keywords:

  recusal of a judge;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4584

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  In a complaint filed on 9 August 2022, consisting of an application for interpretation of Judgment 4567, delivered in public on 6 July 2022, in which the Tribunal dismissed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4370, the complainant sought the recusal, in all cases which concerned him, of the judge presiding over the panel charged with hearing and determining the present complaint on the grounds that the judge had presided over the panels that had dismissed the complainant’s previous complaints, had proposed that some of those complaints be examined under the summary procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal, and had been involved in creating case law that went against the complainant’s interests.
  Ordinarily, except in cases of necessity, a judge will not be involved in adjudicating a case if there is a reasonable apprehension that she or he will not take a completely objective view owing to a risk of a lack of impartiality in her or his determination. In the present case, the complainant’s application for recusal does not refer to any fact substantiating the existence of such a situation. The complainant’s submissions in this respect do not rest on any specific evidence that might suggest bias against him when the cases in question were adjudicated. The mere fact that a complainant is unsuccessful in proceedings before a panel in which a judge participated cannot alone warrant the recusal of that judge in subsequent proceedings involving the same complainant (see Judgments 4520, consideration 1, or 110, consideration 1). The same applies to a situation in which a judge, in her or his capacity as President or Vice-President of the Tribunal, has taken decisions unfavourable to the complainant or in which that judge has participated in creating case law contradicting the complainant’s arguments in a complaint. In these circumstances, the application for recusal cannot be granted. Indeed, it must be emphasised that a judge has a duty to hear and determine a case allocated to her or him, and a decision to recuse which was not properly founded would constitute a breach of that duty (see aforementioned Judgment 4520, consideration 1).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 110, 4370, 4520, 4567
  

  Keywords:

  recusal of a judge;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4520

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of a staff member.

  Consideration 1

  Extract:

  By an email [...], the complainant requested, in effect, the recusal of two of the judges sitting on the panel this session deciding this and other complaints filed by the complainant. This request had been preceded by correspondence to the same effect in relation to the same and other judges in other proceedings involving the complainant. Ordinarily (that is, other than in cases of necessity) a judge would not sit to hear and determine a case if there was a reasonable apprehension that the judge was biased and could not bring an open mind to the determination of the case. The complainant does not point to any facts which would sustain such a conclusion. He does refer to the fact, in earlier correspondence, that one of the judges on the present panel has participated, as a panel member, in a succession of cases in which the complainant was unsuccessful. But nothing was pointed to by way of commentary in the judgments disposing of these cases suggestive of bias against the complainant. The mere fact that a litigant is unsuccessful in proceedings determined by a judge, without more, does not warrant the recusal of the judge in subsequent proceedings involving the same litigant (see Judgment 110, consideration 1). Indeed, a judge has a duty to hear and determine a case allocated to her or him and a decision to recuse which was not properly founded would constitute a breach of that duty.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 110
  

  Keywords:

  recusal of a judge;