|
|
 |
|
|
Personal prejudice (709,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Personal prejudice
Total judgments found: 19
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 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 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] alleges that there was a conflict of interest affecting one of the members of the Selection Board, as that member was the supervisor of one candidate.
The Tribunal recalls that a lack of impartiality, a bias or a conflict of interest on the part of members of a collegiate body such as a selection board may not be presumed. Any allegation of such matters must therefore be supported by tangible evidence (see, inter alia, Judgments 4451, consideration 16, 4408, consideration 22, and 3438, consideration 8). The mere fact, relied on in the present case, that the supervisor of one candidate was a member of the Selection Board cannot, in itself, be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest. In addition, since the complainant merely makes generalised assertions without adducing any tangible or specific evidence to establish the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of the member of the Selection Board in question, those assertions must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3438, 4408, 4451
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; personal prejudice; selection board;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 16
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, however, allegations of bias can only be upheld if they are supported by evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 22, 4099, consideration 11, 3914, consideration 7, 3380, consideration 9, or 1775, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3380, 3914, 4099, 4408
Keywords:
personal prejudice;
Judgment 4543
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the allegation of lack of impartiality, the Tribunal recalls that, under settled case law (see, in particular, Judgments 3192, consideration 13, 3314, consideration 9, 3380, consideration 9, and 3914, consideration 7) the complainant bears the burden of proving bias or partiality. Moreover, the evidence adduced must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that the allegation is well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3192, 3314, 3380, 3914
Keywords:
bias; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4516
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
As the complainant has not substantiated his allegations that the decision to close the case was taken for an improper purpose amounting to abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3172, consideration 16, and 3939, consideration 10) or that it was based on bias (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 9); that it was tainted by personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3912, consideration 13) or bad faith (see, for example, Judgment 3902, consideration 11), there is no basis on which to grant exemplary damages which he claims (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092, 3172, 3902, 3912, 3939, 4010
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; exemplary damages; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4505
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has pointed out many times that bad faith may not be presumed and must be proved (see Judgments 4451, consideration 16, and 4345, consideration 6). The burden of proof is on the complainant, and to support his allegation he must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see Judgment 3902, consideration 11). Similarly, the complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing any bias or inequitable treatment (see Judgment 4097, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4097, 4345, 4451
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4502
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends that the Organization was biased against her. However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the burden of proving bias rests with the complainant (see Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 3914, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3914
Keywords:
burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 22
Extract:
With regard to the alleged favourable bias shown by the supervisor towards the successful candidate, the Tribunal recalls its case law, illustrated in particular by Judgment 3914, consideration 7, according to which it is for the complainant to prove discrimination or bias. In this case, the complainant has confined herself to mere allegations, without providing any tangible evidence in corroboration.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3914
Keywords:
personal prejudice;
Judgment 4281
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that he was deprived of an opportunity to be promoted for the sole reason that he exercised a part-time staff union mandate. The grievance he thereby expresses should, in the Tribunal’s view, be regarded as an allegation of misuse of authority.
In Judgment 3357, under 16, the Tribunal found that “the existence of [...] bias, which would constitute a misuse of authority, may not be presumed. It is incumbent upon the official who intends to rely on a plea of this nature to furnish at least some prima facie evidence in support thereof; mere allegations which are moreover purely speculative are immaterial here (see, for example, Judgments 1775, under 7, 2019, under 24, 2927, under 16, or 3182, under 9)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 2019, 2927, 3182, 3357
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; personal prejudice; staff union activity;
Judgment 4097
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing bias or personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The following basic principles as stated, for example, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, guide the Tribunal where a decision such as this is challenged:
“The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, under 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).”
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1827, consideration 6:
“The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.”
However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must comply with the relevant rules and the case law. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13:
“When an organisation wants to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law. [...] The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti. See Judgments 107[...], 729 [...], 1071 [...], 1077 [...], 1158 [...], 1223 [...] and 1359 [...].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1827, 3652
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice; selection procedure;
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; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3753
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
WHO argues in its reply, correctly, that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of personal prejudice though it acknowledges, again correctly, that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and may rest on inferences drawn from all the circumstances (see Judgments 958, consideration 5, 1775, consideration 7, and 3380, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 958, 1775, 3380
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3751
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant bears the onus of demonstrating personal prejudice (see Judgment 1775, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775
Keywords:
personal prejudice;
Judgment 3748
123rd Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to withdraw an offer of employment allegedly made to her by the Chief Procurement Officer.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is incumbent on the complainant to establish that the actions or conduct complained of was retaliatory (see Judgment 3415, consideration 11), though it can be accepted that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice can be inferred from surrounding circumstances (see Judgment 1775, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3415
Keywords:
organisation's interest; personal prejudice; retaliation;
Judgment 3601
121st Session, 2016
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decisions not to promote him to a post of Inspection Team Leader and not to designate him as an Acting Team Leader.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"It is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that it is incumbent upon an international organisation to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgments 2096, under 9, or 2792, under 7). Moreover, this approach is particularly appropriate in the instant case where the facts needed to prove this matter lie peculiarly in the knowledge of the Organisation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2792
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; patere legem; personal prejudice; selection procedure;
Judgment 3586
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 1775, under 7, reiterated in Judgments 3192, under 13, and 3314, under 9 for example:
“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.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3192, 3314
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3380
118th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post following a competition and alleges perpetual administrative bias towards him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgment 2472, under 9). It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3192
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and not to renew her contract as linked to the harassment she allegedly experienced.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that:
“[a]lthough 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.” (See Judgment 1775, under 7.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
|
|
|
|
|
