|
|
 |
|
|
Conflict of interest (717,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Conflict of interest
Total judgments found: 37
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 11
Extract:
On conflict of interest, in Judgment 4711, consideration 5, the Tribunal recalled as follows its case law on this issue:
“[...] it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 3958, consideration 11). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6) [...]”
On the one hand, the Tribunal considers that the situation to which the complainant pointed does not give rise to an objective partiality. On the other hand, as an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality must be substantiated and based on specific facts, raising it, as the complainant does, based on mere suspicion or hypothesis, is clearly insufficient.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4616, 4617, 4711
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conflict of interest; disciplinary measure; misconduct; organisation's interest; outside activity; political activity; proportionality; staff member's duties;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he FAO/WFP’s regulatory framework prohibits a staff member from engaging in any political activities or being a candidate for a public office of a political character. WFP Human Resources (HR) Manual Section I.2.2.3 relevantly states that staff members wishing to submit their candidacy for a public office, provided that it is not political in nature, must obtain prior authorization from the Executive Director. This section however refers to Staff Regulation 301.1.7, which states that any staff member who becomes a candidate for public office of a political character, while still employed with the WFP, shall resign from the Organization. This makes it obvious that a staff member’s participation in such political activity is inimical to the interest of the WFP and is strictly forbidden. Notably, the Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 1061, consideration 5, that the reason for the provision in Staff Regulation 301.1.7 is that an international civil servant, though entitled to hold his own political views, must stand aloof from demonstrations of adherence to a political party and that integrity, loyalty to the international civil service, independence and impartiality are the standards required of an international civil servant and they require him or her to keep clear of involvement in national party politics.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1061
Keywords:
conflict of interest; international civil service principles; organisation's interest; outside activity; political activity; rules of the organisation; staff member's duties;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[The complainant] refers to the case law […] in consideration 10 of Judgment 4240, that “it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw from cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds”. The complainant further refers to consideration 11 of Judgment 3958, which additionally states that it is immaterial that, subjectively, a person may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice and that persons taking part in an advisory capacity in the proceedings of decision-making bodies are equally subject to the abovementioned rule, which also applies to members of bodies required to make recommendations to decision-making bodies who may sometimes exert a crucial influence on the decision to be taken. The Tribunal also therein stated that a conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality and that even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest. In consideration 3 of Judgment 4679, the Tribunal also recalled its case law that an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses and that the complainant bears the burden to prove a conflict of interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4679
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation of bias, conflict of interest and breach of impartiality on the part of the investigator, as the Appeals Commission in effect found, the allegation could not be proved on the mere basis that the same investigator had already concluded in his initial investigative report that he (the complainant) was culpable for sexual harassment. As the case law states, such allegation must be substantiated and based on specific facts (see, for example, Judgment 4711, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4711
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest; impartiality; investigation;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[The complainant] submits that the Commission was improperly constituted and that its members had a conflict of interest so that they were biased and not impartial. This, he states, is because the members of the panel had already expressed a concluded view in their initial report that he was culpable of the allegation of harassment […] He cites the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 12 of Judgment 2671, that “a reasonable person knowing that a member of [an internal Appeal’s body] had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved [and that] failing an explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their view on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality” […] The Tribunal notes that […] the members of the Commission did not express a prior view on the issue whether the complainant had [engaged in sexual harassment] to lead to a conclusion that they did not embark upon considering the internal appeal in the reopened investigation with open minds thereby casting doubt on their impartiality and precluding them from considering the latter internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2671
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; harassment; impartiality; internal appeals body; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4772
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint another candidate to the position of Director, Investment Centre Division following a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; selection board;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he fact that Mr G. participated with others in the selection process does not excuse his participation if there was a possibility, as plainly there was, particularly given his role as chair of the panel, for him influencing the decision-making of others. Additionally, the Director-General appears to have been suggesting that it was incumbent upon the complainant to “show prejudice, discrimination, lack of integrity or partiality on the part of [Mr G.]”. The conclusion of the Committee was based on the fact, as in the circumstances it could be, that a complaint of harassment against Mr G. had been lodged and was being processed and the [Organization] does not deny that Mr G. was aware of this. It was wrong of the Director-General to call in aid the fact that the [Office of the Inspector-General] had subsequently “found no credible case of harassment”. That is so for one and possibly two reasons. The outcome of the [Office of the Inspector-General]’s consideration of the grievance was not known at the time of Mr G.’s participation in the selection process. Thus, the assessment of a “reasonable person” that would not exclude partiality is to be based on known facts at the time, namely the time of the interviews. Moreover, the conclusion of the [Office of the Inspector-General] manifest in a Notice of Closure of 27 October 2017 was reached unlawfully as discussed in Judgment 4691.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4691
Keywords:
conflict of interest; selection board;
Judgment 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal first recalls its case law stating it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 3958, consideration 11). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4616, 4617
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4699
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.
Considerations 5 & 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal fails to see how the fact that the doctor was appointed by the insurance company on the basis of a list previously approved by Eurocontrol should create a conflict of interest, since, if the Organisation were to appoint the doctor itself, the same issue would still arise given that it would then be its own financial interests that would be directly at stake.
[...]
The assertion that the Sickness Fund Supervisor was subject to a conflict of interests simply through being the “manager” of the fund is based on a mere premise, devoid of any prima facie evidence, and there is nothing in the documents submitted by the parties to suggest that such was the case here. Furthermore, if such an assertion were to be followed, it would lead to the conclusion that it was not permissible for any international organisation to create a sickness and invalidity insurance fund for the benefit of its officials, or, at the very least, that an organisation had to appoint a third party body to manage any fund it created, which is untenable.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; health insurance;
Judgment 4683
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her non-selection to a post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
It is worth noting that the Tribunal stated, in Judgment 1732, consideration 9, that: “[w]here there is a rational and legitimate explanation for a decision, [...] the Tribunal should not be overzealous to infer bad faith or improper motive simply because the individuals concerned do not enjoy good personal relations”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1732
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As to the argument that the persons entrusted with the investigation are in a conflict of interest because they are subject to the hierarchical authority of the person accused of harassment (i.e. the Director-General), the Tribunal recalls its case law which states it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgment 4240, consideration 10). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). An allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden to prove a conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6). The mere fact that the staff members entrusted with an investigation are ordinarily under the authority of the Director- General is not a reasonable ground to call their impartiality into question. In the present case, there is no evidence that they had received any instructions from the Director-General (see Judgment 4243, consideration 9). The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence about the existence of a conflict of interest, which is merely hypothetical and not grounded on specific facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4243, 4616, 4617
Keywords:
conflict of interest; investigation; investigative body;
Judgment 4617
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of harassment dated 6 December 2019 or, otherwise, the implicit confirmation, on 29 January 2020, of the decision to reject her 6 December 2019 claim.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of proof of bias and conflict of interest (see Judgments 4099, consideration 11, and 3380, considerations 9 and 10), and she fails to discharge it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4099
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4616
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision finding that she had harassed another staff member and imposing a written reprimand on her.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of proof of bias and conflict of interest (see Judgments 4099, consideration 11, and 3380, considerations 9 and 10), and she fails to discharge it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4099
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4599
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post, reassign her, terminate her contract including the decision to defer the date of her termination, and to reject her claims of retaliation.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant argues that there was conflict of interest because the composition of the GBA was the same as the one that examined her previous appeal underlying her second complaint; hence, its members were influenced by their findings on that appeal, in particular the finding that her allegations of harassment were not supported by facts. However, the fact that some members of the GBA had sat in a prior appeal and arrived at conclusions adverse to the complainant did not prevent them from considering the appeal at issue in the instant case, as the complainant asserts.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] alleges that there was a conflict of interest affecting one of the members of the Selection Board, as that member was the supervisor of one candidate.
The Tribunal recalls that a lack of impartiality, a bias or a conflict of interest on the part of members of a collegiate body such as a selection board may not be presumed. Any allegation of such matters must therefore be supported by tangible evidence (see, inter alia, Judgments 4451, consideration 16, 4408, consideration 22, and 3438, consideration 8). The mere fact, relied on in the present case, that the supervisor of one candidate was a member of the Selection Board cannot, in itself, be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest. In addition, since the complainant merely makes generalised assertions without adducing any tangible or specific evidence to establish the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of the member of the Selection Board in question, those assertions must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3438, 4408, 4451
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; personal prejudice; selection board;
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 17
Extract:
[T]he mere fact that a staff member casts doubt on the impartiality of managers who have participated in taking a decision unfavourable to her or him is not sufficient, if the accusation is unwarranted, to prove that a conflict of interest exists.
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4540
134th Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from its Statute. In an early case it was described as “a [c]ourt of limited jurisdiction [...] bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence” (see Judgment 67, consideration 3). One of the Tribunal’s central roles, founded on Article II of the Statute, is to enforce compliance with staff regulations where they have not been observed. The touchstone of its jurisdiction is, in this respect, lawfully adopted staff regulations or rules of international organisations. The provisions in the staff regulations and rules are the starting point in the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Staff Rule 1230.7.2 which provides that the final decision in an appeal is made by the Director, must be respected and given full effect. The Director was authorised to make the decision in the appeal in the present case and her decision was not tainted by illegality as alleged by the complainant.
Cases do arise in the Tribunal where the decision appealed against and the decision in the appeal are made by the same person, but the latter decision involves a rejection of recommendations of the appeal body. The discussion in the preceding consideration is not intended to suggest that in such cases there is no real scrutiny by the Tribunal of that latter decision and the reasons given. To the contrary, there is. The Tribunal’s case law is replete with examples where the motivation for the rejection has been found to be inadequate and the decision in the appeal has been set aside (see, for example, Judgments 4427, consideration 10, 4259, considerations 11 and 12, and 4062, consideration 4). This approach has the effect of respecting rules conferring, ordinarily, on the executive head of an organisation the power to make the final decision in an appeal even if an appeal from a decision of that person, while recognising the vitally important role appeal bodies play and the need to give considerable weight to findings and recommendations they make.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 4062, 4259, 4427
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence of tribunal; conflict of interest; final decision;
Judgment 4414
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed applications for review of Judgment 4195.
Consideration 3
Extract:
One of the complainants, Mr K., requests that the application be examined by judges who were not involved in Judgment 4195. This request was rejected by the President of the Tribunal, though he decided that the application for review will be considered by a panel which is not entirely the same as the panel which adopted Judgment 4195.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4195
Keywords:
application for review; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4399
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him from a manager position to a non-managerial post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; conflict of interest; transfer;
Judgment 4374
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions to abolish their posts and terminate their appointments.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In their requests for review, all the complainants […] sought, as one of their claims for relief, the resignation of the Legal Office’s Chief and the resignation, or withdrawal of the application for re-election, of the Registrar. As the decisions responding to these requests were taken by the Registrar and transmitted to the complainants by the Legal Office under the authority of the Legal Office’s Chief, the complainants submit that it created a conflict of interest as “[t]he personal interests of the ICC Registrar and [of the] Chief of [the] Legal Office were thus directly at stake in the [requests] for [r]eview”. They assert that the Registrar and the Legal Office’s Chief were required “[to] disclose in advance any potential conflict of interest that, to the best of their knowledge, may arise in the course of their duties” in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2011/002 of 4 April 2011 entitled “Code of Conduct for Staff Members”. The Tribunal observes that requests for review must be addressed to and responded to by the authority who took the decision being challenged and a conflict of interest cannot be invented just by including a prima facie abnormal claim for relief (such as the request for the Registrar’s resignation). The Registrar correctly considered that no conflict of interest arose from the unreasonable claims for relief.
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4350
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s failure to provide him with a peaceful working environment and to protect him against a series of allegedly “prejudicial and unjustified adverse actions”.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Ground [...], in which the complainant alleges that there was serious procedural impropriety and conflict of interest when the Deputy Chair of the GBA, having decided with the Chair of the GBA to join the two internal appeals, then sat on the GBA panel that considered the appeals, is also unfounded. The mere fact that a member of a panel decides to join internal appeals does not disqualify that member from continuing to sit on the panel during the ensuing proceedings.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4347
131st Session, 2021
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.
Consideration 25
Extract:
The complainant asserts that PAHO’s Office of the Legal Counsel had conflicts of interest stemming from the fact that it was consulted with regard to the performance evaluation process for Mr M. and the investigation and disciplinary procedures. This assertion is wrong. The Office of the Legal Counsel had no conflict of interest as its role is to act as PAHO’s legal advisor when consulted on any issues related to the legality of PAHO’s actions, processes and procedures, including but not limited to performance evaluations, misconduct investigations and disciplinary proceedings. The complainant is mistaken in asserting that the Office of the Legal Counsel “is presumed to defend all PAHO Staff when needed”. The Ethics Office acted in accordance with [...] the Investigation Protocol in forwarding a copy of the investigation report to the Office of the Legal Counsel so that it could ensure, prior to the issuance of the [...] letter of charges, that all applicable rules, policies and procedures with respect to the investigation had been followed and that there was sufficient information and evidence to support the charges of misconduct.
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Consideration 23
Extract:
Concurring with the Board of Appeal’s preliminary recommendation, the complainant alleges that there was an unlawful delegation of authority to the Director of Administration because of the failure to follow the procedure set out in paragraphs 49 to 51 of the PAHO Harassment Policy, which provide that a decision on disciplinary action shall be taken by HRM or, in case of a conflict of interest, the Deputy Director. As noted in Judgment 3958, consideration 11, “[a] conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest”. In the present case, the former Deputy Director’s close working relationship with the complainant and other staff members in KMC created, at the very least, a perception of a conflict of interest. The Tribunal is satisfied by the justification provided by the Director of PAHO in her 27 December 2017 letter [...] that a valid conflict of interest existed for both HRM and the former Deputy Director, and finds that, in the circumstances, the delegation of authority to the Director of Administration was lawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4318
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his objectives for the reporting exercise January to December 2015 and the composition of the Appeals Committee that issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The allegation that the Appeals Committee was improperly composed due to three of the members having been members of the Committee which was found to be unlawfully composed in Judgment 3785, is unfounded. The composition of that prior Committee was found to be unlawful as it breached the applicable rules in force at the material time, not for any reason relating to the individual members.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3785
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
