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 2427


    99th Session, 2005
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
    Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246

    Keywords:

    case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2362


    97th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "By virtue of successive short-term contracts and extensions thereof, [the complainant's] service lasted for four years. The series of extensions and the grant of pension coverage and other benefits did not signify a change in her original status. Staff Rule 3.5(a) [...] cannot be invoked by her as proof that her appointment had been converted to fixed-term. While this provision ostensibly bestows on her 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment', it would be stretching the intent and signification of the provision to make the complainant a fixed-term official (see Judgment 1666). Had that been the purpose of the Rule, it would have explicitly so provided instead of stating that 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment [...] shall apply to [the official concerned]'. The complainant was recruited as a short-term official and remained one at all times."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 3.5(a) of the Rules Governing Conditions of Service of Short-Term Officials
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1666

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; commutation; contract; evidence; extension of contract; fixed-term; fringe benefits; fund membership; interpretation; official; period; provision; purpose; same; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; successive contracts; terms of appointment; unjspf;



  • Judgment 2324


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10 and 11

    Extract:

    "[P]ursuant to Rule 5.3.01, only the Director General had authority to place the complainant on special leave with full pay [...] However, [...] it was the Director of Administration, not the Director-General, who wrote to the complainant and informed her that he was 'placing [her] on special leave with pay until further notice'. That letter contains no reference whatsoever to the Director General or to any discussions with the latter. And although, in her request for review, the complainant expressly contended that the Director of Administration had taken the decision in question, the Director-General did not say anything to the contrary in his reply. [...] That correspondence gives rise to the very strong inference that the decision was taken by the Director of Administration and not by the Director General."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Interim Staff Rule 5.3.01

    Keywords:

    competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; delegated authority; evidence; executive head; presumption; special leave;



  • Judgment 2316


    96th Session, 2004
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 19 and 20

    Extract:

    The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. "The particular circumstances upon which the ITU relies to argue that the complainant should not be granted her step X increment are that the unsatisfactory nature of her services had already been documented prior to the report signed on 3 May 2002 and that she did not cooperate with the establishment of her periodic appraisals. It may at once be noted that the appraisal for the relevant period was not made in May 2002, but in November of that year. Further, and given the complainant's absence on sick leave at various times during the relevant appraisal periods, it is difficult to infer lack of cooperation on her part. However, and more to the point, the matters upon which the Union relies fall far short of establishing that it made a genuine effort to comply with its own procedures, and do not show that the complainant frustrated or sabotaged any such effort. That being so [...], those considerations cannot defeat the complainant's entitlement to her step X increment retroactively. The treatment of the complainant by the ITU is [...] unacceptable."

    Keywords:

    claim; complainant; complaint allowed; date; evidence; increment; liability; organisation; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; period; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; right; sick leave; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2306


    96th Session, 2004
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10 and 11

    Extract:

    "As a general rule, damages for breach of contract, including wrongful termination of a contract of employment, are confined to the amount necessary to put the injured party in the position he or she would have enjoyed if the contract had been performed. Thus, ordinarily, an employee is entitled, in the case of wrongful termination, to salary and entitlements only up to the date on which the contract would normally have expired. Of course, in some circumstances, material damage may extend beyond the salary and allowances that would otherwise have been paid during the course of the contract. Thus, for example, an employee may be entitled to additional compensation if it is shown that he or she lost a valuable chance of having the contract renewed or extended."

    Keywords:

    allowance; amount; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; evidence; exception; extension of contract; general principle; injury; limits; material damages; material injury; misuse of authority; official; reconstruction of career; right; salary; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2299


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant's application for the post of technically qualified member of a board of appeal was unsuccessful. "The complainant considers that he was discriminated against because the Selection Board did not grant him an interview. Obviously the Board decided that, in the light of the candidacies submitted, an interview would not be necessary because it considered that it made procedural sense not to call a candidate who, in its opinion, appeared to be unsuitable for the vacancy concerned, which does not preclude the possibility of comparing the merits of all the candidates in the event of a subsequent challenge."

    Keywords:

    bias; candidate; competition; evidence; post; procedure before the tribunal; selection board;



  • Judgment 2296


    96th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "There can be no doubt of the right of an international organisation to set obligatory rules for the conduct of its staff governing various aspects of their relations with their employer, and that this right includes the right to set reasonable limitation periods during which claims against the employer must be asserted. However, such rules must be published or otherwise made known to all the members of staff concerned in a way which can leave absolutely no doubt as to the nature and reach of the rule, and no doubt that it has been brought to the attention of all those to whom it applies. Even if the [Organization] had succeeded in showing that the tax reimbursement instructions had been given to the staff individually, which it has signally failed to do, it would also have to have shown that all others in like case had been similarly advised. Rules limiting the right to exercise a fundamental condition of employment applicable to all international civil servants are only permissible if they, too, are applicable to all."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; enforcement; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review; limits; official; organisation's duties; payment; provision; publication; purport; reasonable time; refund; right; tax; terms of appointment; time limit;



  • Judgment 2295


    96th Session, 2004
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before the Joint Appeals Board which, as the primary trier of fact has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason the Board is entitled to considerable deference. [...] Where a body such as the Board has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation thereof, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."

    Keywords:

    disregard of essential fact; evidence; internal appeals body; judicial review; limits; manifest error; mistake of fact; report; testimony;



  • Judgment 2293


    96th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 11 and 12

    Extract:

    "While there is no doubt whatever that the Organisation owes a duty of good faith to its staff - '[r]elations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith' (see Judgment 2116) - bad faith must be proved and is never presumed. [...] Although to act in bad faith is always to mismanage, the reverse is not the case and honest mistakes or even sheer stupidity will not, without more, be enough. Bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; decision; evidence; good faith; lack of evidence; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; working relations;



  • Judgment 2254


    95th Session, 2003
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "According to firm precedent, before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him. ... Failing a valid waiver on the part of the complainant of the adversarial proceedings provided for in the staff rules, the Director-General incorrectly based his decision on information that was not gathered in the context of adversarial proceedings guaranteeing the complainant's right to be heard. Since the complainant was not given the opportunity to put forward a proper defence, this fundamental flaw must cause the impugned decision to be set aside."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2229


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3 A)

    Extract:

    "A transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the opportunity for the staff member concerned to participate in the full processing of the evidence and to make all his pleas. It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged amongst the disciplinary sanctions set out in the staff regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of alleged professional shortcomings [...] which may [...] give rise to disciplinary sanctions (see Judgments 1796, 1929 under 7, 1972 under 3 and 4, and the cases cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1796, 1929, 1972

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; disciplinary measure; disclosure of evidence; evidence; formal requirements; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; participation; right to reply; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; transfer;



  • Judgment 2121


    93rd Session, 2002
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 and 14

    Extract:

    The recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel not to renew the complainant's contract was followed. She submits that "at no time was she given a reason for the decision not to renew her appointment. The failure to cite a reason runs counter to principles embodied in a series of Tribunal judgments [...] to state that another body has recommended against renewal, without stating why, is not enough to satisfy the Tribunal that a reason for such non-renewal was given."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; advisory body; case law; complainant; complaint allowed; contract; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; general principle; grounds; iloat; non-renewal of contract; recommendation;



  • Judgment 2116


    92nd Session, 2002
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4 A)

    Extract:

    "Misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; evidence; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 2100


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal points out that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, and that an accumulation of events over time may be cited to support an allegation of harassment (see for example Judgment 2067, [...], under 5 and 16)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence; moral injury; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2098


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant denies having signed an agreement for the termination of his appointment. He asked for a signed copy of the agreement but the organization cannot provide it. "The facts show beyond all doubt that the complainant accepted the [organization]'s offer. His attitude [is] tantamount to an admission that he did agree to the termination of his appointment. This is further borne out by the fact that he raised no objection when the agreement was implemented. The concurrence and reciprocity between the parties would in itself constitute sufficient evidence that a contract existed even in the absence of proof of a written agreement."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; agreed termination; complainant; contract; enforcement; evidence; intention of parties; lack of evidence; offer; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2067


    91st Session, 2001
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    To prove he is the victim of harassment, the complainant relies on facts dating back several years. "Contrary to the [organization's] assertion, the complaint is receivable, there being nothing to prevent the complainant from citing an accumulation of events over time to support an allegation of harassment".

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; evidence; exception; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 2062


    91st Session, 2001
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's practice is to consider any items that are material to the case".

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; practice; submissions; tribunal;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not use [the confidential documents submitted by the organisation] to the complainant's detriment unless he has had the opportunity to see them beforehand".

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; right to reply; submissions; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2058


    91st Session, 2001
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The [Organization] contends that assessments already given by the Tribunal are not open to challenge and considers that several paragraphs of the complaint should be discounted under the res judicata rule. the plea fails: the decision challenged in the present dispute is not the one addressed in [a previous] judgment [...], so the complainant may rely on all such evidence and testimony as he deems appropriate to support his pleas."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; complaint; decision; evidence; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; testimony;



  • Judgment 2028


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal does not dispute the principle of delegation of authority (see Judgment 1386 [...]); however, when a complainant calls for proof that power has in fact been delegated to a specific person, it is a matter for the organisation to produce such proof."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1386

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complainant; complaint allowed in part; delegated authority; disclosure of evidence; evidence; general principle; organisation's duties; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2016


    90th Session, 2001
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As emphasised by the [organisation], the applicable interim Staff Rules provide that the education grant is calculated on the basis of expenses actually incurred. The complainant cannot therefore claim grants calculated on the hypothetical basis of the costs that would have been incurred had he remained in service."

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for execution; burden of proof; condition; education expenses; evidence; family allowance;

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


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top