|
|
 |
|
|
Presumption of innocence (156,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Presumption of innocence
Total judgments found: 18
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint allowed; deduction; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; investigation; manifest error; presumption of innocence; suspensive action;
Judgment 4745
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal […] adds that, according to its well-settled case law regarding the standard of proof in cases of misconduct, the burden of proof rests on an organization, which has to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 22, 4491, consideration 19, 4461, consideration 6, 4364, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was open to the Organization to find, on the evidence, that the complainant’s misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4364, 4461, 4491, 4697
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 22
Extract:
In Judgment 4491, consideration 19, the Tribunal recalled that “[a] staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt”. Similarly, in Judgment 3969, consideration 16, the Tribunal reiterated that, when the executive head of an organisation seeks to motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of a Disciplinary Committee, she or he must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the conduct or behaviour of which a complainant is accused. Lastly, in Judgment 4047, consideration 6, the Tribunal recalled that 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 by the primary trier of fact”.
In the present case, the Tribunal considers it entirely apparent, as was also noted in the unanimous opinions of the Disciplinary Board and the Joint Committee for Disputes, that the Administration could not have found the complainant to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the alleged breaches of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relied on.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4047, 4491
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 4491
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for serious misconduct.
Consideration 19
Extract:
The case law of the Tribunal in a situation such as the present is clear. A staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgment 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof of allegations of misconduct falls on the organisation and it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (see, for example, Judgment 4364, consideration 10). In reviewing a decision to sanction a staff member for misconduct, the Tribunal will not ordinarily engage in the determination of whether the burden of proof has been met but rather will assess whether a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see, for example, Judgment 4362, considerations 7 to 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4362, 4364
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; presumption of innocence; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Judgment 4461
133rd Session, 2022
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to the consistent case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be 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 reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact (see, for example, Judgments 2699, consideration 9, 3882, consideration 14, 3649, consideration 14, and 4227, consideration 6). Also, a staff member accused of misconduct is presumed to be innocent (see Judgment 2879, consideration 11) and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2849, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 2849, 2879, 3649, 3882, 4227
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; presumption of innocence; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends by reference to the note signed by the Director-General [...] that the latter had already decided upon his summary dismissal. Presumably, it is on this basis that it is argued that the presumption of innocence was not maintained throughout the procedure leading to his summary dismissal. It may be that a previous indication of an intention to take a particular decision or the maintenance of an earlier decision even though additional arguments and/or evidence have been provided will indicate that the decision-maker did not properly evaluate the evidence or failed to take account of all relevant facts. In the present case, however, […] it is not established that the Director-General did not fully consider the arguments and evidence adduced by the complainant. Similarly, it is not established that he did not properly evaluate all the available material. Accordingly, the argument that the presumption of innocence was not maintained must also be rejected.
Keywords:
presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2914
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal points out that, in the event of disciplinary measures, the staff member concerned enjoys a presumption of innocence and that, in accordance with the principle in dubio pro reo, he or she must be given the benefit of the doubt (see in particular Judgment 2351, under 7(b)). The burden of proof lies with the Organization which intends to take disciplinary action against a staff member.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2351
Keywords:
in dubio pro reo; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[I]n the event of disciplinary measures, the staff member concerned enjoys a presumption of innocence and [...], in accordance with the principle in dubio pro reo, he or she must be given the benefit of the doubt (see in particular Judgment 2351, under 7(b)). The burden of proof lies with the Organization which intends to take disciplinary action against a staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2351
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; general principle; in dubio pro reo; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was charged with misconduct in relation to the publication of an article which reflected badly on WIPO, WIPO's Director General and her former supervisors. Disciplinary sanctions were imposed on her, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years. She challenged the imposition of sanctions, denying any responsibility for the publication of the article and arguing that they were tailored to specifically delay her promotion, which the Tribunal had ordered in Judgment 2706. The Tribunal found that the evidence fell far short of establishing the complainant's responsibility.
"The determinative issue in this complaint centres on the finding that the complainant was responsible for the publication of the article. It is well established that the individual accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent. It is equally well established that the accuser bears the burden of proof. WIPO does not deny that it bears the burden of proof but submits that the standard of proof is "precise and concurring presumptions". The Tribunal does not accept this submission. In Judgment 2786, under 9, it held that in the case of misconduct the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; bias; burden of proof; evidence; liability; misconduct; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2396
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Any administrative or disciplinary body of an organisation which consults a third party to obtain information concerning the professional behaviour of one of its staff members must naturally avoid impairing the latter's dignity and reputation. In the first place, it absolutely must ensure that the presumption of his innocence is maintained, and if its action is such as to breach the presumption of innocence or the fundamental rights of the staff member, making that action confidential is of no avail."
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; executive body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; qualifications; respect for dignity; right;
Judgment 2351
97th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
Disciplinary sanctions presuppose that a staff member has committed a fault for which he must be punished. Contrary to what the ITU maintains, however, the burden of proof rests with the Administration, since the complainant must enjoy a presumption of innocence and the protection afforded by the principle in dubio pro reo.
Keywords:
in dubio pro reo; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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 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;
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 635
54th Session, 1984
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant denies that she was ever in gross breach of the duty of discretion. She claims never to have been in touch with journalists neither herself nor through anyone else. "She can go no further than that since it is impossible to adduce evidence to rebut the charge. Her statement that she did not commit the misconduct she is charged with shifts the burden of proof to the organization. The Tribunal will not require absolute proof, which is almost impossible to provide on such a matter." A set of precise and concurring presumptions would be sufficient.
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty of discretion; evidence; misconduct; organisation; presumption of innocence; serious misconduct; standard of proof;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization accuses the complainant of gross breach of her duty of discretion. It contends that she was directly responsible for leaking information to the press which resulted in newspaper articles. "The three articles take the complainant's side and put the organization in a bad light. But [...] this is not enough to create precise and concurring presumptions which might afford justification for the [dismissal] decision."
Keywords:
duty of discretion; misconduct; organisation's reputation; presumption of innocence; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 528
49th Session, 1982
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The specialists "do no more than concede the likelihood of a causal link between the complainant's impairment and the discharge of his duties." The Internal Appeals Board summed up in cautious wording that "is not such as to allow the Tribunal to declare that the conditions in the [material rules] are fulfilled in the complainant's case. The presumptions in his favour are, with regard to all the points at issue, neither sufficiently precise nor sufficiently concordant".
Keywords:
evidence; illness; lack of evidence; presumption of innocence; service-incurred;
Judgment 495
48th Session, 1982
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Prejudice is usually concealed and so its existence usually has to be established by inference. When the facts of a single case are sufficiently strong to establish an inference, there is no need to examine other cases. But they may be strong enough to create only a suspicion falling short of complete proof of the allegation; an example is the case of Q. [Judgment 447]. In such a case proof of a similar suspicion in similar cases becomes relevant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 447
Keywords:
bias; evidence; presumption of innocence;
|
|
|
|
|
