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: 222

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >

  • Judgment 4428


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of her request to combine a half day of absence for strike participation with a half day of leave.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    With regard to the question of unequal treatment, the Tribunal notes that the Organisation has not provided any convincing evidence to justify the different treatment of the complainant’s colleague.

    Keywords:

    evidence; unequal treatment;



  • Judgment 4427


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant’s contention that the transfer decision was tainted by misuse of authority is unfounded. In consideration 10 of Judgment 4146, for example, the Tribunal recalled that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury. It also observed that in order for there to be misuse of authority, it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the organisation’s interests and that the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised. Misuse of authority cannot be presumed. The complainant has not provided evidence, against conjecture, that shows that his transfer was based on improper purpose.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4146

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; burden of proof; duty of care; evidence; misuse of authority; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 4412


    132nd Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal relevantly restated in Judgment 3586, consideration 16, that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him, and that, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. Such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers. Additionally, the Tribunal reiterated, in consideration 17 of that judgment, its consistent case law that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all the materials an adjudicating body uses in an internal appeal and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586

    Keywords:

    confidentiality; due process; evidence; motivation;



  • Judgment 4411


    132nd Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment as a result of the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    In its pleadings before the Tribunal, the FAO again provided no information regarding the restructuring of LOG. In particular, the FAO did not adduce any evidence as to whether LOG was, in fact, restructured and, if so, when the decision to restructure LOG was taken, in particular, if the restructuring had occurred prior to the decision to abolish the complainant’s post. These were facts within the knowledge of the FAO that the FAO opted not to provide. In this regard, the FAO submits that it was “not legally obliged” to provide the complainant with “documentation on the proposed restructuring”, referring to Judgment 3920, consideration 11, and it emphasises that she has not “adduced any evidence to discharge her burden of proving that extraneous factors motivated the decision to abolish her post”. However, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3415, consideration 9, “[w]hile international organisations are entitled to defend proceedings before the Tribunal, and even do so robustly, it is singularly unhelpful and inappropriate for an organisation to refuse to provide documents sought by a complainant that are patently relevant to his case and then argue that the complainant has not furnished relevant evidence in support of that case”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3415, 3920

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; burden of proof; evidence; organisation's duties; reorganisation;



  • 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 13

    Extract:

    The fact that the table [of preselected candidates] was produced before the Tribunal in a version that did not show candidates’ names does not alter the fact that it exists.

    Keywords:

    confidentiality; evidence; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4406


    132nd Session, 2021
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of reduction in grade.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that, as the complainant was provided with unredacted copies of the three requested documents before lodging his appeal with the GBA against the imposition of the disciplinary measure, he was able to rely on this material during the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that his right to be heard and his right to due process were not violated.

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; investigation;



  • Judgment 4400


    131st Session, 2021
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    [A]n international organisation cannot be criticised for discounting the probative value of a person’s testimony contradicting the accusations made by that same person before the national courts.

    Keywords:

    evidence; testimony;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    Paragraph 44 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, which concerns officials’ “[p]ersonal conduct” and provides that “acts that are generally recognized as offences by national criminal laws will normally also be considered violations of the standards of conduct for the international civil service”, previously states that “[a] conviction by a national court will usually, although not always, be persuasive evidence of the act for which an international civil servant was prosecuted”.
    The complainant argues that the principle set out in the second phrase concerning the probative value of convictions by national courts applies, in the words of that phrase, only “generally” and “not always”, and submits that, in the present case, the ILO was in a situation where it should have invoked that exception rather than accepting the offences of which he was accused as proven. However, it is well known that this restriction, placed on the principle in question when the Rules were adopted, was solely intended by the drafters to reserve the case of convictions in States where the courts do not offer the requisite safeguards of independence and procedural fairness. Since there is no doubt that the French legal system fulfils that requirement, the Organization – whose role plainly is not to assess whether a conviction by a national court is justified and which does not have the means to investigate conduct such as that in question in the present case by itself – rightly relied on the judgment of the Tribunal correctionnel and considered that the offences of which he had been accused had been proven.

    Keywords:

    conduct; criminal sanction; disciplinary procedure; domestic law; evidence;



  • Judgment 4347


    131st Session, 2021
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    The Tribunal, in accordance with its case law, shall not reweigh the evidence but shall limit itself to evaluating the lawfulness of the Board of Appeal’s and Director’s findings and conclusions on the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4237, consideration 12, 4207, consideration 10, and 3964, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3964, 4207, 4237

    Keywords:

    evidence; misconduct;



  • Judgment 4343


    131st Session, 2021
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote him by two grades as a disciplinary measure for harassment.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [I]t is firmly established in the case law that the question of whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of by the alleged victim (see Judgment 3640, consideration 14, and the case law cited therein). Alleged instances of similar conduct involving other staff members would plainly be relevant in this respect.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640

    Keywords:

    evidence; harassment;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [I]t should be recalled that the complainant bears the burden of proving that there was manifest error in the contested fact-finding. The complainant alleges that the Director General’s decision is, in effect, tainted by erroneous fact-finding by OIOS and/or the JDB. He argues that OIOS did not take into consideration his denials to the allegations or other aspects of his evidence or comments which he made during the investigation and on the draft report. However, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3640, consideration 23, the fact that denials were not deemed convincing does not in any way imply that they were not duly taken into consideration.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence;



  • Judgment 4291


    130th Session, 2020
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant’s submissions [...] essentially ask the Tribunal to appraise the evidence presented in the OIOS Preliminary Assessment and in the Internal Audit Investigation Report, and to rule that the Appeals Committee and the Director General have erred in their assessments of the evidence. In Judgment 3593, consideration 12, the Tribunal stated as follows:
    “[I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body 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 such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.”
    (See also Judgments 4091, consideration 17, 3882, consideration 13, and 3682, consideration 8.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 4091

    Keywords:

    evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation;



  • Judgment 4279


    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 to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]t should be recalled that it is not for the Tribunal, in view of the very nature of its role and the stage at which it intervenes in the disputes referred to it, to review all the findings of fact and assessments of evidence made by an internal investigative body which has gathered, as near as possible to the events, the information necessary to establish the truth of the matters at issue and, in particular, has heard the statements of the parties and various relevant witnesses at first hand. Under its settled case law, the Tribunal will only interfere with the findings of such a body, provided they have been made in the course of a properly-conducted procedure complying with the applicable rules of law, if they involve an obvious error of judgement (see, for example, Judgments 3593, under 12, 3682, under 8, 3831, under 28, or 3995, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3831, 3995

    Keywords:

    evidence; inquiry; investigation;



  • Judgment 4241


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.

    Considerations 11-12

    Extract:

    Although the complainant did not provide a list of witnesses in her harassment complaint, she stated therein that she had named witnesses throughout that complaint wherever relevant. She identified about twenty-four persons with reference to various allegations of harassment which she proffered. Initially, between October and November 2016, the IOS interviewed seven of those persons and then transmitted a summary of their testimony to the complainant in December 2016 for her comment. In her response, dated 13 January 2017, the complainant noted that the IOS had not interviewed her or other witnesses whom she had identified. In March 2017, the IOS called five other witnesses. It called the complainant for oral testimony in May 2017. The IOS did not call some of the persons whom the complainant had identified concerning specific allegations, the UNAIDS Chief of Staff and the UNAIDS Executive Director in particular. This was in breach of proper procedure, particularly given that the IOS has not explained why it did not hear those persons (see Judgment 4111, consideration 3).
    There was also a breach of proper procedure when, notwithstanding the clear discrepancies between critical aspects of the evidence given by the complainant and the three persons whom she accused of harassment (some of which the complainant had detailed in her response of January 2017 and later in her oral testimony), the IOS did not call those persons again to clear the discrepancies (as contemplated by Article 24 of the Investigation Process) in order to determine the truth and properly establish the facts. Moreover, the IOS erred when contrary to the indication contained in paragraph 3.1.5 of the Policy, that harassment is normally prolonged and persistent, as well as the settled principle that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of an allegation of harassment, the IOS rejected each allegation of harassment separately without considering whether cumulatively they provided proof of harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4111

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; witness;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has stated that it is by no means abnormal that the investigations conducted with a view to ascertaining the truth of the statements contained in a complaint should be widened to encompass other similar behaviour on the part of the alleged harasser. It noted that it is in fact often the best means of corroborating the allegations of the complainant in an area where it may be impossible to produce material evidence. It has further stated that, more generally, the question whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of by the alleged victim (see, for example, Judgments 3233, consideration 6, and 3640, consideration 14). The Tribunal notes that notwithstanding that Mr F.C. had testified that he sustained treatment that was similar to that which the complainant alleged at the hands of the DXD/MER, who was then his second-level supervisor, his testimony found no place in the IOS’s analysis.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233, 3640

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation;



  • Judgment 4237


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision – taken after his resignation – to find him guilty of serious misconduct, and the decision to withhold from his separation entitlements an amount corresponding to financial losses allegedly incurred by WHO as a result of his misconduct.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), “where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)”. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, “it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)” (see Judgment 3757, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3593, 3682, 3757, 3757, 4024, 4026, 4091

    Keywords:

    evidence; inquiry; internal appeal; investigation;



  • Judgment 4207


    129th Session, 2020
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [I]t must also be observed that it is well settled in the case law that “it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body 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 such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where [an investigative body] has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error” (see Judgment 3593, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593

    Keywords:

    deference; evidence; inquiry; investigation;



  • Judgment 4118


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that, according to the latest correspondence submitted by the parties, the Office did ultimately provide the complainant with a copy of his medical file including, in particular, the [...] report of Dr V. However, the complainant is still not satisfied on this point, as he asserts that the file that was provided to him is incomplete and its contents unlawful. But in any case, that claim, made after the close of the written proceedings, cannot be considered by the Tribunal in the context of the present judgment.

    Keywords:

    closure of written proceedings; evidence;



  • Judgment 4115


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Contemporaneous documents are often more reliable than subsequent oral testimony.

    Keywords:

    evidence; testimony;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The complainant sought moral damages by way of relief but advanced no evidence, or even argument, to support this claim.

    Keywords:

    evidence; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4111


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded. This plea is well founded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4110


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; testimony;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The parties do not dispute that the complainant had requested that the colleagues who had also filed a harassment grievance be heard as witnesses, which was refused. [...] In the present case, the refusal, without valid grounds, to hear witnesses with regard to the complainant’s allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; testimony; witness;



  • Judgment 4109


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4108


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to be heard; testimony;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top