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 3347


    118th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.

    Considerations 19 to 21

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that a staff member must have access to all evidence upon which a decision concerning that staff member is based. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3264, under 15:
    “It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that 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’. Additionally ‘[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality’ (see Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).”
    It is equally well settled that a statement in a staff regulation or other internal document that a report is confidential will not “shield a report […] from disclosure to the concerned official”. Moreover, “[i]n the absence of any reason in law for non-disclosure of the report, such non-disclosure constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness” (Judgment 3264, under 16).
    The fact that the complainant did not request a copy of the report of the IAOD, which investigated her claim of harassment, is irrelevant. She was entitled to receive a copy of it. Equally, it is not an answer to say that the complainant was given a summary of the report. In addition to the fact that she was entitled to the entire report, the summary did not contain any of the evidence upon which the conclusion was based. It simply stated that “[t]he IAOD investigation has not found facts that support the complainant’s allegations or that show she was entitled to have matters requested by her approved or that she was subjected to harassment, whether through a single incident or as an on-going pattern”. The complainant was effectively precluded from challenging the factual assertions and credibility of the witnesses interviewed and was left not knowing what evidence if any should be marshalled to counter the investigator’s conclusions.
    As stated in the case law, a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the staff member. In the present case, the failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report prior to the Director General taking his 25 June decision renders that decision fundamentally flawed. However, as that decision was overtaken by subsequent events, the only remedy today is an award of moral damages."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; inquiry;



  • Judgment 3297


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was dismissed for misconduct following a disciplinary investigation, which found that he had forged and falsified documents.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; evidence; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 3295


    116th Session, 2014
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is true that an organisation should investigate allegations of misconduct in a timely manner both in the interests of the person being investigated and the organisation. These interests include, among other things, safeguarding the reputations of both parties and ensuring that evidence is not lost."

    Keywords:

    consequence; delay; duty of care; evidence; inquiry; misconduct; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 3253


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. If that cannot be done (perhaps because the document was sent by a system of transmission that does not permit actual proof), the Tribunal will ordinarily accept what is said by the addressee about the date of receipt (see, generally, Judgments 447, consideration 2; 456, consideration 7; 723, consideration 4; 890, consideration 4; 930, consideration 8; 2473, consideration 4; and 2494, consideration 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 447, 456, 723, 890, 930, 2473, 2494

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; date of notification; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; late appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3215


    115th Session, 2013
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; material damages; negligence; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred; working conditions;



  • Judgment 3198


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the withdrawal from his personal file of the warnings concerning his productivity.

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "According to the case law of the Tribunal, no damages will be ordered where a decision does not hamper a career and the matter which was complained of has been withdrawn (see Judgment 1380, under 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380

    Keywords:

    decision; evidence; lack of evidence; lack of injury; material damages; moral injury; no cause of action; professional injury; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 3172


    114th Session, 2013
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "A decision taken for an improper purpose is an abuse of authority. It follows that when a complainant challenges a discretionary decision, he or she by necessary implication also challenges the validity of the reasons underpinning that decision. In this respect, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the post to determine whether the impugned decision was tainted by abuse of authority."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; breach; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; discretion; evidence; misuse of authority;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; general principle; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3138


    113th Session, 2012
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    It is certainly regrettable that the complainant’s professional mailbox was consulted in her absence. However, the evidence in the file shows that she was informed that such a technical check was imminent and – naturally – it had to be carried out urgently.

    Keywords:

    due process; email; evidence;



  • Judgment 3108


    113th Session, 2012
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    An internal appellate body is the primary fact-finding body in the internal appeals process. It is the body that sees and hears the witnesses and must assess the reliability of the evidence adduced. A full appreciation of the evidence can only occur in circumstances where individuals whose interests may have been adversely affected have an opportunity not only to be present to hear the evidence but also to test the evidence through cross-examination. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2513, under 11, "in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the JAB must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and [...] those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2513

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; internal appeals body; witness;



  • 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 3065


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    An investigation was carried out into the complainant's allegations of harassment.
    "The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; complaint allowed; consequence; decision quashed; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; procedural flaw; report; right to reply; testimony;



  • 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 2973


    110th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment.
    "[T]he long delay seriously compromised the integrity of the investigative process. In addition to the diminishing recollection of events with the passage of time, potential witnesses are no longer available. As well, with the passage of time, it may be that those individuals in the Administration responsible for ensuring the protection of the staff member concerned are no longer with the Organization. If so, this would effectively preclude any accountability for the failure to protect a staff member if a finding of harassment were to be made."

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; breach; delay; evidence; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; lack of evidence; liability; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 2930


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."

    Keywords:

    bias; complaint allowed; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2915


    109th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Director General did not sign the letter [informing the complainant that her request was denied] does not mean that he did not take the relevant decision. The signing of the letter by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] is consistent with normal personnel practice. Moreover, the presumption of regularity applies in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary."

    Keywords:

    competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; evidence; executive head; formal requirements; practice; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2902


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6, 8 and 10

    Extract:

    The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his appointment following a restructuring which entailed the abolition of his post.
    "[T]he question remains as to whether restructuring was the real reason for the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment. [...]
    Although the record supports the Organization's assertion that a restructuring has occurred, it does not reflect that a decision to restructure and a decision regarding the abolition of specific posts had been taken [before] the complainant was informed that a recommendation to restructure had been approved and that new staffing requirements meant that his post and others would be abolished. [...]
    [T]he decision not to renew the complainant's appointment must be set aside."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; evidence; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 2892


    108th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "It does not follow that, because the Administration has failed to prove misconduct, the charge of serious misconduct was "specious" or part of a campaign of bullying and intimidation, as claimed by the complainant. On that issue the complainant bears the onus of proof. And as the evidence [...] is inconclusive, his claims in this regard must be rejected."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; evidence; misconduct; serious misconduct;



  • 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;



  • Judgment 2861


    107th Session, 2009
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 83

    Extract:

    "A decision not to renew a contract is a discretionary decision that can be reviewed only on limited grounds. Those grounds include that the decision is tainted by procedural irregularities, is based on incorrect facts or essential facts have not been taken into consideration or clearly false conclusions have been drawn from the facts. The complainant argues that the decision of 25 October 2006 should be set aside on the ground that it is a disguised disciplinary measure. It is clear from the terms of the letter of 25 October 2006 [...] that that decision was taken on the basis of what was considered to be misconduct. So much is confirmed by the complainant's subsequent summary dismissal based on the warning of 25 October 2006 [...]. However, in Judgment 1405, the Tribunal stated that '[s]ince disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment the complainant may not properly allege hidden disciplinary action'. Even so, where nonrenewal is based on misconduct, that misconduct must be proved. And if the decision has not been preceded by disciplinary proceedings, the obligation of good faith requires that an organisation at least give the staff member concerned the opportunity to answer the matters levelled against him or her. Indeed, unless that opportunity is given, the organisation will be at risk of proceeding on incorrect facts or without regard to essential facts or of drawing false conclusions."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1405

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; good faith; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; remand;



  • Judgment 2856


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 11 and 13

    Extract:

    "At the outset, the complainant's grievance was in relation to his appointment, as a result of restructuring, to [a] position [...] at grade P.3. Although the complainant has advanced a number of arguments in support of his complaint, at this juncture, he holds a post at grade P.4 and throughout the material time he has retained his personal P.4 grade. [T]he central issue is whether there is merit to the complainant's contention that he should have been placed in a «genuine P.4 position»."
    "The fundamental flaw in the complainant's position is that he has not adduced any evidence that he had the specific knowledge and skills required to function in a «genuine P.4 position» within the Organization¿s new Oracle-based system. [...] As well, not only has he not adduced any evidence to show that he has the requisite knowledge and skills to work in an Oracle-based system, the evidence shows that he had difficulty performing a number of tasks attributed to his new position."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; evidence; lack of evidence; qualifications; reassignment; reorganisation; status of complainant;

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


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top