|
|
 |
|
|
Admissibility of evidence (145, 146,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Admissibility of evidence
Total judgments found: 19
Judgment 3407
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the implied decision to reject his claim against the new calculation of his pension rights.
Consideration 17
Extract:
If the Organisation wished to dispute the authenticity of the document produced by the complainant, [...] it should have investigated the matter more thoroughly, or obtained an expert opinion, which as the file shows, it failed to do.
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 39
Extract:
"Contemporaneous notes [...] always have evidentiary value, the more so if they are not controverted by other evidence. [E]-mail communications which are evidence of their contents and [...] assume particular evidentiary weight if their contents are not challenged."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
"The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Absolute privilege also operates to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. A tribunal would not be independent and impartial, nor seen to be so, if it were to assume the role of dictating to the parties the evidence and arguments that they can advance in their cases. That is not to say that a tribunal cannot control its own proceedings by, for example, excluding irrelevant evidence or striking out scandalous pleadings. Nor does it mean that a tribunal cannot draw inferences by reason of the nature of the evidence or argument presented, including in appropriate cases, adverse inferences as to the motive of the party relying on that evidence or argument. But if the evidence or argument is relevant to the issues to be decided, it is for the parties alone to determine whether they will rely on it. And because the parties must have that freedom or privilege, a tribunal cannot apply sanctions in separate proceedings with respect to the evidence or arguments advanced, particularly not after the proceedings have been completed. Were it otherwise, there would be no finality to litigation."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; evidence; independence; judicial review; submissions;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Hearsay evidence is not necessarily inadmissible. The question is always one of its probative value."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; evidence;
Judgment 2758
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[D]eceit consists in the manoeuvres of one party to mislead the other and obtain his or her consent. Deceit cannot be presumed; it must be proved, if necessary by means of strong, precise and concurring presumptions."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; definition; evidence; lack of consent;
Judgment 2067
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
To prove he is the victim of harassment, the complainant relies on facts dating back several years. "Contrary to the [organization's] assertion, the complaint is receivable, there being nothing to prevent the complainant from citing an accumulation of events over time to support an allegation of harassment".
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; complaint; evidence; exception; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2058
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [Organization] contends that assessments already given by the Tribunal are not open to challenge and considers that several paragraphs of the complaint should be discounted under the res judicata rule. the plea fails: the decision challenged in the present dispute is not the one addressed in [a previous] judgment [...], so the complainant may rely on all such evidence and testimony as he deems appropriate to support his pleas."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; complaint; decision; evidence; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; testimony;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17(D)
Extract:
The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; due process in disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; evidence; witness;
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that either there was sufficient admissible evidence of the guilt of the complainant as an accused staff member or there was not. If there was not enough admissible evidence to convince the person making a decision, the charge should have been dismissed; if there was enough such evidence, then there should have been a finding of guilty. What is not permissible is to take a stand somewhere between the two, which is what the [Joint Appeals] Board did."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; due process; evidence; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 1784
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Under Manual paragraph I.2.510 the Organization is empowered to require that the original bills be attached to the form that the staff member must fill up to claim the education grant. It does not have to accept evidence of the sort the complainant is offering. It will evaluate any alternative proof he may produce in the absence of the bills. Original documents must have gone astray before, and it is often possible to reconstitute them. It is up to the Organization to decide - subject to review by the Tribunal - whether the proof offered is satisfactory."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH I.2.510 OF WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; allowance; application for execution; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; education expenses; evidence; judicial review; lack of evidence;
Judgment 1745
85th Session, 1998
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The [Organisation] says, quite rightly, that the verbatim record of the Board's hearings does not have the same authority in law as formal minutes. Yet statements made by some witnesses, undoubtedly in good faith, are worth citing."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence; good faith; internal appeals body; submissions; testimony;
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 937
65th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"In its surrejoinder the FAO objects to the complainant's obtaining evidence in the form of tape recordings. The Tribunal has not made use of them and therefore need not rule on the issue".
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence; recording;
Judgment 817
62nd Session, 1987
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal has examined the transcripts and finds that they do not add anything material to the rest of the evidence before it on his allegations. There is therefore in point of fact no need to rule on their admissibility in the particular circumstances of the case."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; recording;
Judgment 448
46th Session, 1981
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The complainant appends to her complaint excerpts from tape recordings of evidence given to the Board of [...] Appeal. The [Organization] invites the Tribunal to disregard the excerpts on the grounds that they are incomplete or else to ask the Board to produce the complete recordings. The Tribunal has no reason to disregard the excerpts. The [Organization] does not deny their accuracy and was free [...] to supplement them itself [it] may not properly object to the Tribunal's passing judgment on findings of the internal appeals body."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; recording;
Judgment 429
45th Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The statutory provisions which prohibit the disclosure of evidence are not binding on the Tribunal, which is competent to decide on what evidence is admissible. The Tribunal "will decide the matter as it deems fit, with due regard to the interests of both parties - the complainant's interest in having written evidence to support his case and the interest of the organisation or of third parties in preserving the privileged nature of such evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; competence of tribunal; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Statutory provisions prohibit officials from disclosing information not already made public or from disclosing, without permission from the Director-General, in any legal proceedings information of which they have knowledge by reason of their duties. Such permission will be refused only when the interests of the organisation so require. On the strength of these provisions the organisation requests the withdrawal of certain items. "The provisions cited [...] govern the relationship between the [organisation] and its staff [...]. They are not binding on the Tribunal since no Staff Regulations may limit the Tribunal's competence to determine whether written evidence is admissible."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; competence of tribunal; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty of discretion;
Judgment 204
30th Session, 1973
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary of facts (J)
Extract:
"The Tribunal has disregarded the complainant's four additional memoranda [...] addressed to the Registrar of the Tribunal after the complainant had been informed that the proceedings were closed."
Keywords:
additional written submissions; admissibility of evidence; closure of written proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
Judgment 140
22nd Session, 1969
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"After the close of the written proceedings the complainant communicated to the Tribunal a statement [...] signed [by a third party]. In principle the Tribunal takes account of all documents produced before the opening of the session at which the relevant case is to be judged. In the case at issue, the Tribunal has no reason not to take the statement into consideration. At the most it might ask the complainant to certify its authenticity, but this is unnecessary since the document in question cannot affect the outcome of the proceedings."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; closure of written proceedings; disclosure of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 133
21st Session, 1969
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant produced a number of resolutions demonstrating the reactions of the staff to the measures taken; "the organization asks the Tribunal to rule on the admissibility of these documents", alleging that their production would constitute intervention by the staff association. "However [...] the documents in question [are] in no way improper; they are no more capable of influencing the Tribunal's decision than any of the other evidence submitted. They must be regarded as written evidence rather than as the statement of one of the parties or its representative. There is no cause to exclude them from the dossier."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; oral proceedings; testimony;
|
|
|
|
|
