ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Evidence (144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Evidence
Total judgments found: 209

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >



  • Judgment 3912


    125th Session, 2018
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal relevantly stated the following in Judgment 1775, consideration 7:
    “Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; evidence;



  • Judgment 3882


    124th Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with immediate effect for misconduct.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It is settled principle that the organization must prove its case against a complainant in a disciplinary matter such as this beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    As far as the admissibility of the documents is concerned, the Tribunal’s case law states that its practice is to consider any items that are material to a case, but that it will not use a confidential document to the complainant’s detriment unless she or he had the opportunity to see it beforehand (see Judgment 2062, under 5). It has further stated that an item which is material to a case will be admissible unless it was obtained by deceit, or its authenticity is in dispute (see Judgment 1637, under 6). The complainant does not challenge the authenticity of the documents and there is no evidence that they were obtained by deceit.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1637, 2062

    Keywords:

    evidence;



  • Judgment 3880


    124th Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s finding of misconduct and the imposition of the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for two weeks, and claims excessive delay in the disciplinary and internal appeal proceedings.

    Considerations 8-9

    Extract:

    It is “well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed” (Judgment 3649, under 14). It is also well established that a staff member accused of misconduct is presumed to be innocent (Judgment 2879, under 11) and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (Judgment 2849, under 16). It is observed that the FAO did not cite nor is there any support in the case law for its position before the Appeals Committee that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard did not apply in this case. Moreover, it conflates two distinct parts of the misconduct process: the finding of misconduct (if proven beyond a reasonable doubt) and the subsequent imposition of an appropriate sanction for the misconduct.
    Based on a reading of the Appeals Committee’s report and the Director-General’s impugned decision, it appears that in each instance the standard of proof applied was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of misconduct. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct is a far less onerous evidentiary burden than the requisite “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. The application of the incorrect standard of proof is a fundamental error of law and requires, on this ground alone, that the impugned decision be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2849, 2879, 3649

    Keywords:

    evidence; misconduct; standard of proof;



  • Judgment 3876


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests the payment, after his death, of a pension for a surviving spouse to his wife and of an orphan’s pension to two children of whom he claims to be the biological father. He also claims allowances for dependent children.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [I]t was incumbent upon [the complainant] submit to the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings any evidence he considers to be material in support of his case (see Judgments 1248, under 7, and 3678, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1248, 3678

    Keywords:

    evidence;



  • Judgment 3872


    124th Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Considerations 2 and 3

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6).
    [T]he Tribunal determines that the complainant’s plea that there was a conspiracy against him is unfounded as he has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate it. The Tribunal recalls that WHO bears the burden of proof in a case such as this. However, inasmuch as the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence, its approach when the issue of the burden of proof is raised is to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see Judgment 3649, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3649, 3757

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence; manifest error;



  • Judgment 3865


    124th Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment due to the redundancy of her post.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [O]rdinarily it is a matter for the parties to decide what evidence they provide to the Tribunal and it is not for the Tribunal to say what evidence it requires. There is nothing about this case that would warrant a departure from that essential feature of the adversarial process.

    Keywords:

    evidence;



  • Judgment 3863


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    While what Mr M. said in the conversation with Mr K. about the identity of the person who told him these things might be viewed as hearsay, such evidence may nonetheless be admissible and it is simply a question of evaluating its probative value (see Judgment 2771, consideration 17).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771

    Keywords:

    evidence;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The case law of the Tribunal establishes that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against her or him. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2700, consideration 6, cited recently in Judgments 3688, 3613, 3586, 3490, 3380, 3347, 3290, 3285, 3272 and 3264, for example). The complainant is also entitled to have an opportunity to test the evidence and produce evidence to the contrary (see, for example, Judgment 2786, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2786

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; due process; evidence;



  • Judgment 3862


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    Without descending into detail, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was open to the ICC not to disclose certain information to the complainant because of the pending criminal proceedings (see Judgments 1756, consideration 10, and 2700, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2700

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; evidence;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The case law of the Tribunal establishes that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against her or him. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2700, consideration 6, cited recently in Judgments 3688, 3613, 3586, 3490, 3380, 3347, 3290, 3285, 3272 and 3264, for example).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; due process; evidence;

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    The parties have made additional submissions with respect to the confidentiality of some of the pleadings and evidence that have been submitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken note of these submissions and has referred to the evidence that it considers necessary in order to achieve justice between the parties.

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; evidence;



  • Judgment 3854


    124th Session, 2017
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not award him compensation for a service-incurred disability.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    For a decision maker (or an advisory body) to say they place “limited weight” on a document or testimony can beg the question of the true reliance placed on that document or testimony. Obviously it involves placing some weight on the document or testimony.

    Keywords:

    evidence;



  • Judgment 3852


    124th Session, 2017
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds the claim that information was illegally collected from the complainant’s electronic devices to be unfounded. The electronic devices, which were inspected, were her work computer and the work scanner for her department. These devices are the property of the OPCW and the complainant had to acknowledge a disclaimer prior to logging in to her work computer.

    Keywords:

    evidence;



  • Judgment 3831


    124th Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3597, under 2, and the cases cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597

    Keywords:

    evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;



  • Judgment 3757


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him summarily.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The impugned decision rightly emphasises that adducing material evidence is especially difficult in cases of corruption or market manipulation where nothing is put in writing by either party and everything often takes place without the involvement of third persons who might be called as witnesses. A staff member who is accused of such dealings is certainly entitled to due process offering him every opportunity to defend his interests, and the burden of proof always falls upon the Administration. However, the latter’s investigation will not be required to culminate in the establishment of absolute proof. All that is needed is a set of precise and concurring presumptions removing any reasonable doubt that the acts in question actually took place (see Judgments 1384, under 10, 3137, under 6, and 3297, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1384, 3137, 3297

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; due process; evidence;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; manifest error;



  • Judgment 3755


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The resultant flaw in the internal appeal procedure [non-disclosure of evidence] was not remedied in any way by the fact that the Organization produced the report in question with its reply before the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; evidence; reply;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has repeatedly held that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) a decision affecting a personal interest worthy of protection. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. But such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers (see Judgment 3688, under 29, and the case law cited therein).
    The Tribunal has also found that the report of the body responsible for conducting a reassignment process […] is analogous not to the records of confidential discussions, but to the final report of a selection committee which may be disclosed to the staff member concerned, if necessary with redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3290, under 24).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3290, 3688

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence;



  • Judgment 3725


    123rd Session, 2017
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    IOS is a fact-finding investigative body. Its task is to collect, collate and analyse information objectively, impartially, fairly and with the highest degree of integrity and to determine thereupon whether there is sufficient information to substantiate a complaint on a balance of probabilities, examining both inculpatory and exculpatory information.

    Keywords:

    evidence; inquiry;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    [P]ursuant to Administrative Circular 87, the task of the JDC is to determine whether the facts and conclusions of IOS provide sufficient bases of proof of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt, and, in that way safeguards a staff member’s right to due process as it provides a forum in which the staff member may defend herself or himself and test the evidence provided by IOS against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; due process; evidence;



  • Judgment 3688


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her post and to separate her from service.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    Whether the post was abolished for financial reasons is a question of fact. Those facts were within the knowledge of WHO and it must show that when it advanced financial reasons as a ground for the abolition of the complainant’s post this was genuine. It has not done so. In the absence of that evidence, it is determined that the complainant’s post was unlawfully abolished and the claim on this ground is well founded.

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; burden of proof; evidence;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The evidence which the complainant presents, particularly relating to the strained relationships in the Unit, may raise speculation as to whether the reorganization was merely a device to be rid of the complainant. However, there is not sufficient or sufficiently cogent evidence, as against speculation or surmise, to link the abolition of the complainant’s post and her separation from office to the alleged acts of prejudice and bias, retaliation, malice or bad faith perpetrated against her.

    Keywords:

    evidence;



  • Judgment 3669


    122nd Session, 2016
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post of Director.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The only decision impugned in the internal appeal was that appointment [...]. Thus the complainant’s complaint to this Tribunal concerns that decision. That is not to say evidence of events in his career cannot, in an evidentiary sense, be relied on in support of allegations of bias or prejudice in relation to the consideration of his candidacy for the position [...]. If the evidence is of substance, it can be relied upon.

    Keywords:

    evidence; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3649


    122nd Session, 2016
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General of the IAEA to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [I]t is useful to reiterate the well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is 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 a reasonable doubt could properly have been made” (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; disciplinary measure; evidence; misconduct;



  • Judgment 3640


    122nd Session, 2016
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant submits that the facts considered in these proceedings should have been confined to those directly concerning Ms M. and that it was therefore wrong also to take account of allegations related to his behaviour towards other persons. However, contrary to what the Appeals Board seems to believe, in the context of an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint, it is by no means abnormal that the investigations conducted with a view to ascertaining the truth of the statements contained in the complaint should be widened to encompass other similar behaviour on the part of the alleged harasser. In fact, that is often the best means of corroborating the allegations of the complainant in an area where [...] it may be impossible to produce material evidence. More generally, it should be recalled that the question of whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of by the alleged victim (see Judgments 2553, under 6, in fine, 3166, under 16, in fine, or 3233, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553, 3166, 3233

    Keywords:

    evidence; inquiry; sexual harassment;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    In addition, although the other acts taken into consideration had not led to the lodging of harassment complaints – in many cases this may be explained by the inherent risks of making an accusation against a supervisor – this did not pose a legal obstacle to their being taken into account. All that mattered here was that these acts had actually occurred, irrespective of the action which might have been taken on them at an earlier stage. The fact that they did not lead to the lodging of a complaint does not make them any less relevant as evidence corroborating the allegations of Ms M. (see, in respect of this latter point, Judgment 2521, under 10, in fine). The reprehensible conduct of an international civil servant may well give rise to a disciplinary measure taken by the employing organisation on its own initiative, regardless of whether one of his or her colleagues files a complaint. Item 11.3 of the Human Resources Manual, on disciplinary procedure, expressly provides for such a step, and in this connection the defendant organisation rightly points out that item 18.2, paragraph 5(d), of the Manual makes the management of UNESCO responsible for “resolving all instances of harassment as soon as it becomes aware of them, even if there are no formal complaints”. Since, in the instant case, acts of harassment concerning persons other than Ms M. had been expressly mentioned in the memorandum of the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources Management of 3 November 2011 notifying the complainant of the charges against him, in this respect the procedure followed bears no criticism.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2521

    Keywords:

    evidence; inquiry; sexual harassment;

    Considerations 17-21

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant contends with greater cogency that he was never provided with the full content of the witness statements forming the basis of the accusations against him, nor was he informed of the witnesses’ names. It is true that the witness statements were not appended to the report drawn up at the end of the investigation and, as mentioned in a footnote in that document, the identity of the witnesses was deliberately not disclosed. [...]
    [T]his strict observance of confidentiality by UNESCO might be seen as departing from the Tribunal’s established case law according to which “a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” and, “under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers). [...]
    [W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).
    In the instant case, the investigation report contained an extremely detailed description of all the instances of unwelcome behaviour by the complainant towards the 21 women identified as victims of his conduct, and their names were given in almost all cases. The complainant was therefore plainly apprised of the content of all the testimony taken during the investigation and of the e-mails which he had not been allowed to see. Furthermore, although, as stated above, the identity of the witnesses was not revealed to him, it is obvious that most of the information recorded in the report could only have come from the 21 persons concerned themselves. The complainant was therefore given a real opportunity to dispute the various items of evidence gathered in the course of proceedings against him. Moreover, it is clear from the above-mentioned comments which he submitted to the Organization on 18 November 2011 to rebut the charges of which he had been notified, that he had in fact been able to prepare them without any particular difficulty. Indeed, he himself described these comments as “clarifications and objections to the accusations of sexual harassment against [him], based on the whole file, and in particular on the IOS investigation report”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3295

    Keywords:

    evidence; inquiry; sexual harassment;

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal considers that the acts of which the complainant was accused are established by sufficiently strong evidence that, in accordance with the requirements of the case law on the subject, it has been proved “beyond reasonable doubt” that they actually took place (see Judgment 2786, under 9, and the reference to this requirement made in Judgment 969, under 16).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 969, 2786

    Keywords:

    evidence;



  • Judgment 3439


    119th Session, 2015
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[I]t is desirable to refer to the approach taken by the Tribunal to findings of fact made by internal appeal bodies such as the HBA. As is evident from the Tribunal’s discussion in Judgment 2295, under 10, it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. Moreover the findings of such an internal appeal body warrant deference. In addition, where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295

    Keywords:

    evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error; mistake of fact;



  • 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;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top