Burden of proof (148,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Burden of proof
Total judgments found: 217
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[E]ven though the breach of confidentiality is proven (as it has been acknowledged by the EPO), there is no evidence that the complainant suffered any damage as a result of that breach. Considering all the facts and relevant circumstances of the present case, […] the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s request for damages is unsubstantiated.
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; burden of proof; confidentiality; moral damages; moral injury;
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the complainant bears the burden of proof that he suffered moral injury (see Judgments 4522, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein, and 4012, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4012, 4522
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4801
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Insofar as moral damages are concerned, she simply asserts in her brief that she seeks such damages ‘for the injustice and personal harm caused by the clearly discriminatory underevaluation of the Complainant’s professional experience in order to favor [the new Principal Director of Human Resources]’. Beyond this broad statement, there is no specification of the moral injury caused by the appointment nor evidence supporting its existence. These matters precondition the award of moral damages (see, for example, Judgment 4644, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4644
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4762
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant [...] seeks moral damages for the length it has taken for the initial harassment claim of Ms B. to be investigated and resolved by a final decision of the Executive Director, a period of almost two and half years. The moral injury asserted by the complainant is simply described as unnecessary anguish, stress and reputational damage. While it can be assumed his dismissal might have had this effect, it is not self-evidently so in relation to the time complained of by him. The complainant bears the burden of proving moral injury and a causal relationship between that and the event complained of but has not done so in this case (see, for example, Judgment 4644, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4644
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law 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 2100, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100
Keywords:
accumulation; burden of proof; evidence; harassment;
Judgment 4745
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal […] adds that, according to its well-settled case law regarding the standard of proof in cases of misconduct, the burden of proof rests on an organization, which has to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 22, 4491, consideration 19, 4461, consideration 6, 4364, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was open to the Organization to find, on the evidence, that the complainant’s misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4364, 4461, 4491, 4697
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; presumption of innocence;
Consideration 12
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, complainants bear the burden of proof with regard to allegations of bias (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 9). Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their 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 (see Judgment 4608, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4608
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4727
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[T]he question of the alleged lack of injury suffered by the complainant in fact relates to the merits of the complaint rather than to its receivability, and the objection to receivability raised must therefore be rejected. Clearly, a complainant has a cause of action when seeking compensation from an organisation for injury that she or he claims to have suffered as a result of an unlawful act on the part of that organisation.
According to a general principle of law which the Tribunal applies in its case law, a claim for compensation can only be granted if the complainant provides evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see, for example, Judgments 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, 3507, considerations 14 and 15, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3507, 3778, 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; misconduct; moral injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4726
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[S]ettled case law has it that the complainant bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that his allegations of bias or partiality are well founded (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4725
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Settled case law has it that the complainant bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that his allegations of bias or partiality are well founded (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4721
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] finds, as it did in consideration 12 of its Judgment 4713 [...] (citing Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9) that the complainant, who bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that her allegations of bias or partiality are well founded, has not discharged that burden.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4716
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he complainant has not discharged his burden to prove the existence of the practice on which he relies (see, for example, Judgments 3734, consideration 5, and 2702, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2702, 3734
Keywords:
burden of proof; practice;
Judgment 4713
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant, who bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that her allegations of bias or partiality are well founded (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9), has not discharged that burden. Her case of bias, partiality or prejudice on the part of her reporting and countersigning officers is based essentially on disagreements between her and those officers on management decisions and instructions they issued, which the complainant saw as an interference in the work of her division and its processing of patent applications, among other things. In the Tribunal’s view, they do not amount to bias, partiality or prejudice, which disqualified those officers from carrying out their assessment of the complainant’s 2014 performance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal first recalls its case law stating it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 3958, consideration 11). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4616, 4617
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4707
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the modifications brought to the subsistence allowance.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
CERN does not contest that the complainant has personal standing to maintain his complaint. It accepts that the complainant has standing “before the Tribunal in respect of administrative decisions adversely affecting [his] conditions of association” and it refers to Judgment 1166. However, what it does contest concerns the subject matter of the complaint as it is “not related to the Complainant’s conditions of association deriving from his contract or from” the Staff Rules and Regulations (SRR). Part of CERN’s argument in its reply is that payment of subsistence allowances which are the subject of the ceiling, do not derive from the SRR or an appealable decision of the Director-General of CERN (appealable under Article S VI 1.01 of the SRR), but rather are decided upon by an external entity as the employer of the MPA concerned. The pleas on this topic continue in the rejoinder, surrejoinder, further submissions of the complainant and final comments by CERN. Part of the responsive argument of the complainant is that CERN had not provided any proof that the payments of the subsistence allowance of the complainant had been “decided upon by an external entity”.
The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, generally, a party making an allegation bears the burden of proving it (unless, of course, it is not contested). This approach has relevance in cases where a defendant organization challenges the receivability of a complaint and that challenge is based on a fact or facts bearing upon receivability. Cases have arisen where such challenges have failed because the defendant organization has not proved a fact underpinning the contention that the complaint was not receivable (see, for example, Judgments 3034, consideration 13, and 2494, consideration 4). If a distinction is drawn between the general arrangement whereby CERN made payments on behalf of third parties which is principally a matter of process, and an alteration, particularly a material one, to the amount of any such payment based on a decision of the third party communicated to CERN then proof of that decision may be required to sustain the objection to receivability of the type advanced by CERN. It is not at all obvious, even implicitly, from the material relied upon by CERN that the alteration, by way of reduction, of the subsistence allowance commencing in 2020 payable to the complainant, was ever considered by the complainant’s Home Institution, an American university. The absence of evidence leaves open the possibility that, as a matter of fact, the reduction in the payment of the subsistence allowance to the complainant was a direct result of the implementation of the general decision to place a ceiling of ordinarily 5,163 Swiss francs on subsistence payments which did not involve any decision-making or instructions by or from the complainant’s Home Institution. But it is unnecessary to explore this issue any further as, for reasons which follow, the complaint should be dismissed on its merits.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2494, 3034
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause of action; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 22
Extract:
In Judgment 4491, consideration 19, the Tribunal recalled that “[a] staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt”. Similarly, in Judgment 3969, consideration 16, the Tribunal reiterated that, when the executive head of an organisation seeks to motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of a Disciplinary Committee, she or he must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the conduct or behaviour of which a complainant is accused. Lastly, in Judgment 4047, consideration 6, the Tribunal recalled that 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 by the primary trier of fact”.
In the present case, the Tribunal considers it entirely apparent, as was also noted in the unanimous opinions of the Disciplinary Board and the Joint Committee for Disputes, that the Administration could not have found the complainant to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the alleged breaches of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relied on.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4047, 4491
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 4671
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 14
Extract:
With regard to the injury caused by Interpol’s purported bad faith when dealing with the internal appeal, the Tribunal considers that, although the appeal was wrongly rejected, as stated above, it does not appear from the submissions that the Organization acted in bad faith when handling it.
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4670
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 27
Extract:
With regard to the injury caused by Interpol’s purported bad faith when dealing with the internal appeal, the Tribunal considers that, although the appeal was wrongly rejected, as stated above, it does not appear from the submissions that the Organization acted in bad faith when handling it.
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4662
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.
Consideration 18
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s allegation that the Organization acted maliciously, under false pretences and with the aim of taking advantage of the situation to her detriment, it is settled case law that the complainant bears the burden of proving malice and bad faith. While the complainant’s disappointment at the response received is understandable, allegations of this nature nevertheless require proof that goes beyond mere conjecture or speculation. In the absence of any evidence, this allegation must be dismissed.
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; malice;
Consideration 13
Extract:
As regards the alleged breach of her right to an effective internal appeal due to a lack of impartiality on the part of the Joint Appeals Committee, the Tribunal observes that the complainant’s submissions on this point refer mainly to the fact that the member representing the staff did not issue a dissenting opinion in the face of the numerous egregious flaws in the process before the Committee. However, settled case law has it that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of lack of impartiality and, in this case, the complainant clearly does not adduce the requisite proof. Mere suspicions and allegations unsupported by tangible evidence are insufficient (see Judgment 4553, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553
Keywords:
burden of proof; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4643
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract during the probationary period and seeks adequate compensation for the injury he alleges he suffered.
Consideration 11
Extract:
According to the case law of the Tribunal, in relation to damages and in particular to moral damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4156, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 4637
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 17
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s suspicions of bias and prejudice on the part of the reporting officers and the chairwoman of the Appraisals Committee, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the complainant bears the burden of proving such allegations. They must be supported by evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal; mere suspicion is clearly not enough (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 8, 4382, consideration 11, and 3380, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4382, 4543
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4617
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of harassment dated 6 December 2019 or, otherwise, the implicit confirmation, on 29 January 2020, of the decision to reject her 6 December 2019 claim.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of proof of bias and conflict of interest (see Judgments 4099, consideration 11, and 3380, considerations 9 and 10), and she fails to discharge it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4099
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
