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: 214

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



  • 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; 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; 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;



  • Judgment 2014


    90th Session, 2001
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17(D)

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; due process in disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; evidence; witness;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal considers that either there was sufficient admissible evidence of the guilt of the complainant as an accused staff member or there was not. If there was not enough admissible evidence to convince the person making a decision, the charge should have been dismissed; if there was enough such evidence, then there should have been a finding of guilty. What is not permissible is to take a stand somewhere between the two, which is what the [Joint Appeals] Board did."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; due process; evidence; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2009


    90th Session, 2001
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant was suspended without pay for three months after being accused of making a false declaration and submitting false information to a court of law. The Joint Disciplinary Board found that there was sufficient evidence to prove his wrongdoing. "The Tribunal is satisfied that the Joint Disciplinary Board was entitled, having weighed the evidence, to draw the conclusions it did. It found that the complainant's explanations were not credible and rejected them. Where doubt does not exist, the question of the benefit of the doubt does not arise. So the complainant cannot succeed on the plea that his employer was bound to accept that he had made a mistake. The Board was fully justified in its findings."

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; benefit of doubt; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; fitness for international civil service; general principle; misconduct; misrepresentation;



  • Judgment 2007


    90th Session, 2001
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Under the provisions [of the Staff Regulations], a contract may be terminated for unsatisfactory performance only after the employee has been served with a formal written warning allowing him or her three months to improve. That period which essentially aims at allowing the employee concerned enough time as may be constructively used to correct mistakes, make good shortcomings and improve both behaviour and working relations with other staff members must cover an effective period of three months during which the employee must be in a position to perform his or her duties correctly and to make full use of his or her abilities. The Tribunal considers that in this instance the complainant was not in such a position."

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; evidence; injury; medical fitness; notice; period; qualifications; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 1977


    89th Session, 2000
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The complainant on several occasions filed claims and received reimbursement for duty travel in business class while he had in fact travelled in economy class, pocketing the difference. [...] There is no evidence to support the complainant's contention that this fraud was condoned or approved by the Agency and [...] his suggestion that his fraudulent practice was widespread amongst other Agency personnel, which is likewise not supported by any evidence at all, is wholly irrelevant: even if all the Agency's officers had been defrauding it in the same manner as the complainant, that would constitute no excuse for him. Where several persons commit the same crime, the guilt of one is not lessened by that of the others."

    Keywords:

    conduct; evidence; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; official travel; practice; serious misconduct; travel expenses;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant refused to avail himself of his right to respond to allegations during the internal investigations of his serious misconduct. "In these circumstances, the complainant's request for a hearing is manifestly unjustified. The complainant has offered no evidence at any stage of the proceedings against him, therefore, such a hearing could not possibly add anything to the record before the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    evidence; misconduct; oral proceedings; refusal; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;



  • Judgment 1961


    89th Session, 2000
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that "in Judgment 139 [...] the Tribunal made it clear that it did not consider the assignment of the duties of an abolished post to other staff members as an indication that there had been an abuse of authority, provided that the evidence showed that the number of staff members was in fact reduced." It affirms this case law.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 139

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; case law; condition; evidence; misuse of authority; staff reduction;



  • Judgment 1942


    88th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "A general principle of law [...] has it that for a claim for damages to be entertained, the complainant must provide evidence of the actual injury and of a causal link between the unlawful act and the injury suffered."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; cause; evidence; general principle; injury; material damages; moral injury;



  • Judgment 1894


    88th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It is not for the complainant [...] to judge whether the information requested by [the insurance company] is necessary in order to enable it to assess her claims. That is a matter for the professional assessment of [the insurance company] and its medical adviser and the Tribunal would not interfere unless it was satisfied that the information was being sought for some abusive or improper purpose."

    Keywords:

    evidence; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical examination; medical expenses; staff member's duties; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1825


    86th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1796


    86th Session, 1999
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The statements by the representative [of the organization] and by the complainant are at odds and there is no irrefutable evidence before the Tribunal. The conclusion is that what was needed was a proper inquiry to see whether on the strength of reliable evidence the charges against him stood up.

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; misconduct;



  • Judgment 1791


    86th Session, 1999
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    "In support of their plea that the impugned decision rested on wrong reasons and wrong conclusions [the complainants] contend that [the Organization] was mistaken in its explanation: there was in fact no financial crisis warranting a compulsory pay cut. [...] The plea fails. The evidence [...] shows that [the Organization's] member States had not been spared the economic and financial plight of Europe at the time and so were much less able to fund the Organization. That was why [...] they had to think again about the budget [...] and demand a big cut. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that [the Organization] did not give wrong reasons or draw any blatantly wrong conclusions."

    Keywords:

    budgetary reasons; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; grounds; mistaken conclusion; reduction of salary; salary;



  • Judgment 1784


    86th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "Under Manual paragraph I.2.510 the Organization is empowered to require that the original bills be attached to the form that the staff member must fill up to claim the education grant. It does not have to accept evidence of the sort the complainant is offering. It will evaluate any alternative proof he may produce in the absence of the bills. Original documents must have gone astray before, and it is often possible to reconstitute them. It is up to the Organization to decide - subject to review by the Tribunal - whether the proof offered is satisfactory."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH I.2.510 OF WHO MANUAL

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; allowance; application for execution; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; education expenses; evidence; judicial review; lack of evidence;



  • Judgment 1781


    85th Session, 1998
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted that the Director-General had verbally promised him three step increments at his grade. On the evidence there is no denial by the Director-General on that point. The Tribunal holds that: "While the Director-General may communicate within the Organization through others acting on his behalf, the best evidence available must be offered in proceedings before the Tribunal. In this instance it would have been direct denial by the Director-General himself."

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; evidence; executive head; lack of evidence; promise;



  • Judgment 1775


    85th Session, 1998
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "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 [...] the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification."

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; complainant; evidence; lack of evidence;



  • Judgment 1745


    85th Session, 1998
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The [Organisation] says, quite rightly, that the verbatim record of the Board's hearings does not have the same authority in law as formal minutes. Yet statements made by some witnesses, undoubtedly in good faith, are worth citing."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; evidence; good faith; internal appeals body; submissions; testimony;



  • Judgment 1732


    84th Session, 1998
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    It has been plain "that an allegation of personal prejudice will rarely be susceptible of direct proof and must usually be established by inference: see Judgment 495 [...]. Where there is a rational and legitimate explanation for the decision, however, 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): 495

    Keywords:

    bias; decision; evidence; grounds; misuse of authority; working relations;

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


 
Last updated: 15.06.2021 ^ top