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

Impartiality (716,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Impartiality
Total judgments found: 4

  • Judgment 4257


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    If an official involved in the preparation of a staff report is not impartial and that can be demonstrated by prior conduct, the fact that the conduct took place some years earlier does not render that prior conduct irrelevant when assessing partiality. Partiality is not necessarily periodic or episodic and can be enduring. In addition, it may be doubted that the Appraisals Committee could, without investigating the matter itself, simply rely on a short letter from management to satisfactorily deal with the question of partiality.

    Keywords:

    impartiality; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4240


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law states that 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 further states that 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, for example, Judgment 3958, consideration 11). The Tribunal finds that the evidence which the complainant provides to support the allegation of conflict of interest may raise a suspicion. However, it does not provide reasonable grounds on which to hold that the Executive Director’s impartiality may have been open to question.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958

    Keywords:

    conflict of interest; impartiality;



  • Judgment 4234


    129th Session, 2020
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The proposal to dismiss the complainant was drawn up by the Director General and was introduced by the OIE’s counsel at the Council’s meeting. It is not disputed that the Director General and his Deputy did not leave the meeting room after the complainant was heard. The OIE explains in this regard that although those two senior officials are not members of the Council, the applicable rules state that they have to attend its meetings in order, among other reasons, to provide secretarial support. According to the Organisation, they “facilitated” the rest of the meeting but did not participate in the actual deliberations. These explanations are confirmed by the minutes of the meeting of the Council on 1 October 2015, which the Tribunal has examined in camera.
    However, the fact remains that, under a general rule of law which is not unique to the international civil service, a person called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his authority must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. The duty to act impartially is incumbent not only on the authority competent for issuing the final decision, but also on bodies responsible for making a recommendation to this authority (see Judgments 2667, consideration 5, and 3958, consideration 11).
    The circumstance that the complainant had initiated criminal proceedings against the Director General was liable to cast doubt on the latter’s impartiality, particularly because in this case the disciplinary action had been taken more than six months after the events and shortly after the submission of the request for compensation for harassment. The Tribunal observes in this respect that the proposal for a disciplinary measure was issued on the same day that the request for compensation for moral harassment was rejected. In these particular circumstances, the Director General ought to have entrusted the matter to the next most senior official whose impartiality could not be disputed (see Judgment 3958, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2667, 3958

    Keywords:

    conflict of interest; impartiality;



  • Judgment 3732


    123rd Session, 2017
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal is of the opinion that the contested JAC member could not be a member of the JAC assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the JAC had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. His impartiality may be open to question (see Judgment 2671, under 10) as there are reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgment 2225, under 19).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671

    Keywords:

    conflict of interest; impartiality; internal appeals body;


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top