ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Testimony (157,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Testimony
Total judgments found: 29

1, 2 | next >

  • 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 personís testimony contradicting the accusations made by that same person before the national courts.

    Keywords:

    evidence; testimony;



  • 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;



  • 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 Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís 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 complainantís 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 Tribunalís 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 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 this case, the refusal, without valid grounds, to hear witnesses with regard to the complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; testimony;

    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 Tribunalís 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;



  • Judgment 4091


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant is asking the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence. As stated in Judgment 3593, under 12, the Tribunal has consistently held:
    ď[...] that it is not the Tribunalís 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.Ē
    (See also Judgments 3995, under 7, 3882, under 13, and 3682, under 8.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 3995

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; judicial review; manifest error; testimony;



  • Judgment 3944


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal considers that in any case, even if the complainant did not attend the witnessesí interviews, his right to be heard was not breached, since he was informed of the content of their testimony and given an opportunity to comment on it when he received the charge letter of 28 February 2014 (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3640, under 20).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; testimony;



  • Judgment 3065


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 3046


    111th Session, 2011
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
    "The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;



  • Judgment 2771


    106th Session, 2009
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses (for example, Judgments 999 and 2475), to object to evidence (for example, Judgment 2468) or to have a verbatim record of the evidence (for example, Judgment 1384). These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses' testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out to the Assistant Director-General and, later, the Director of the Human Resources Management Division, inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...]. In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the complainant had and exercised a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. There is no suggestion that he was in any way circumscribed in the way his appeal was conducted. Accordingly, the process, viewed in its entirety from the making of the subordinate's harassment complaint until the Committee reported to the Director-General, was one that satisfied the requirements of due process."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1384, 2468, 2475

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 2601


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal does not consider that in this case the requirements of due process were disregarded. The complainant was informed of the statements taken immediately after the incident and those gathered subsequently, and indeed of the observations made by the Chief of the Conferences Department, and he had several opportunities to express his own views and to comment on the documents submitted to the Joint Advisory Committee. There was no written rule or principle which obliged the Administration to take down those statements in the presence of the complainant, given that they were not used without his knowledge, or to hold a face-to-face meeting or a reconstitution on the spot of this regrettable incident."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1133

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; inquiry; investigation; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5(b)

    Extract:

    The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; breach; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 2513


    100th Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal notes [...] that in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the [Joint Appeals Board] must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and that those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; applicable law; confidential evidence; due process; exception; general principle; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 2496


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; official; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;



  • Judgment 2475


    99th Session, 2005
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct following an investigation. "The procedure adopted in this case was clearly flawed in that the complainant was denied the opportunity to question any of the persons whose statements were used against him, evidence of little probative value was relied upon and, at least to some extent, he was required to prove his innocence instead of having the matters alleged proven against him. [...] It follows that the [...] decision [...] to dismiss the complainant must be set aside. The complainant shall be reinstated [...] and shall receive all arrears of salaries and other benefits; he must account for any earnings from other employment."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; burden of proof; consequence; disciplinary measure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; procedural flaw; reinstatement; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; testimony;



  • 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 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 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 1675


    84th Session, 1998
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[The Organisation] pleads that the hearing of witnesses by the Disciplinary Board need not be adversarial and that the inquiry will be if the Board hears witnesses called by both sides. the plea is mistaken. An inquiry will be adversarial only if the parties attend, or have at least been duly invited to attend, the hearing of witnesses."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: RULE NO. 12 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to reply; testimony;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top