Bias (572,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Bias
Total judgments found: 135
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
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 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 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 4690
136th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to uphold his transfer to Budapest.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
It may be accepted that the Tribunal has recognised, at least in relation to certain classes of cases, that evidence of earlier conduct which precedes the conduct actually the subject matter of the complaint, may be relied on to prove the true character of the later and impugned conduct. An obvious example is a case involving an allegation of harassment. The Tribunal has accepted that in such a case the evidence of earlier conduct is admissible (see Judgments 4601, consideration 8, 4288, consideration 3, 4286, consideration 17, 4253, consideration 5, and 4233, consideration 3). But the purpose of that evidence is to enable the correct characterization, if it is in issue, of the impugned conduct. The same can happen in cases where bias and prejudice are alleged (see Judgment 3669, consideration 2).
There is probably no overarching principle which will determine the admissibility of evidence concerning earlier events in every case. At least in a case such as the present, the question of admissibility should be determined by reference to the specific facts of the case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4233, 4253, 4286, 4288, 4601
Keywords:
bias; evidence; harassment; prejudice;
Judgment 4683
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her non-selection to a post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
It is worth noting that the Tribunal stated, in Judgment 1732, consideration 9, that: “[w]here there is a rational and legitimate explanation for a decision, [...] the Tribunal should not be overzealous to infer bad faith or improper motive simply because the individuals concerned do not enjoy good personal relations”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1732
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest;
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;
Judgment 4616
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision finding that she had harassed another staff member and imposing a written reprimand on her.
Consideration 6
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;
Judgment 4608
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decision to maintain Office Instruction No. 10/2016, promulgating, inter alia, the discontinuation of the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Section.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is […] well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias (see Judgment 4097, consideration 14) and that, moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 2472, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 3380, 4097
Keywords:
bias;
Judgment 4553
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover sums which were unduly paid to him as dependent child allowance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant [...] contends that the IAC opinion was biased. According to him, the two representatives appointed to the IAC by the staff representation and their alternates were under an ever-present threat of disciplinary measures if they complained to the Organisation about their high workload on the IAC.
The Tribunal observes, however, that the complainant does not adduce the evidence of such a lack of impartiality required under its case law (see, for example, Judgments 4422, consideration 17, and 4097, consideration 14). Mere suspicions and unproven allegations are plainly insufficient in this regard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4097, 4422
Keywords:
bias; internal appeals body;
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 4529
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to select Ms V. for the post of Proofreader (Spanish), at grade G-4, in WHO’s Headquarters’ Word Processing Centre.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s firm case law has it that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias and prejudice. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4382, consideration 11, and 2472, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 4382
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; evidence; prejudice;
Judgment 4523
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to temporarily reassign him to another post following his allegations of harassment against his supervisor, as well as administrative measures taken in relation to his performance during his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias, prejudice and malice (see, for example, Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 4382, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4382
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; malice;
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 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 17
Extract:
To support their allegations that the Appeals Committee’s opinion is biased, the complainants submit that the means of redress before the Appeals Committee do not meet the minimum judicial standards. Their allegations of bias are based in some respects on scandalous allegations concerning the Chair of the Appeals Committee. Moreover, the complainants’ allegations of bias on the part of some members of the Appeals Committee are unfounded as they provide no evidence to prove them as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 4097, consideration 14). Additionally, the complainants’ argument that the Appeals Committee’s process does not meet the minimum judicial standards because the President of the EPO sits in the proceedings as a party and judge in his own cause is unsupported with any helpful analysis. Their statement that the Appeals Committee is an advisory body with no competency to make decisions misapprehends the quasi-judicial nature and functions of an internal appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 3785, consideration 6, and 3694, consideration 6). The complainants’ argument that, in deciding to consider their internal appeals in a written procedure without conducting an oral hearing, the Appeals Committee conflates itself with the Tribunal leaving appellants without a fact-finding process does not take into consideration Article 8 of the Implementing Rules for Articles 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations mentioned in consideration 11 of this judgment. In the foregoing premises, the allegations of bias are unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3694, 3785, 4097
Keywords:
bias; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4407
132nd Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award her moral damages higher than 20,000 Swiss francs for the moral injury she alleges to have suffered as a result of the personal prejudice and bias she endured during her probation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
bias; complaint dismissed; moral injury; probationary period;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The situations [the complainant] describes in her submissions to the Tribunal show clear issues of mismanagement but do not support a finding of personal prejudice and/or bias against her specifically.
Keywords:
bias; prejudice;
Judgment 4382
131st Session, 2021
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decisions to set aside her 2016 performance appraisal only on the basis that it was procedurally flawed, and to insert in her personnel file the impugned decision and the report of the Appeals Commission.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias and that, moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. 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 (see, for example, Judgments 2472, under 9, 3380, under 9, and 4097, under 14).
With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal has stated that 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 her or 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, for example, Judgment 3912, under 13). The Tribunal has also stated, in the context of alleged inaccuracies in a staff report, that it is not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it is necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer (see, for example, Judgment 2930, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 2930, 3380, 3912, 4097
Keywords:
bias; performance evaluation; prejudice;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
