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: 223

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



  • 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:

    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 11-12

    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; 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; 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; 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:

    abuse of power; burden of proof; 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; 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; abuse of power; 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;

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


 
Last updated: 15.12.2021 ^ top