Beyond reasonable doubt (923,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Beyond reasonable doubt
Total judgments found: 9

• Judgment 4749

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment with compensation in lieu of notice.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  In disciplinary matters, the Tribunal has consistently found that the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed. In respect of the standard of proof, the Tribunal relevantly stated the following in Judgment 4362, considerations 7, 8 and 10:
  “7. [...] The relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 3863, consideration 11). Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence (see Judgment 3863, consideration 8).
  8. The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed, it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the ‘criminal’ standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the ‘civil’ standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
  [...]
  10. [...] The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact, the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863, 4362
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4697

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law [...] establishes that, in disciplinary matters, the official’s right to due process means that an organisation has an obligation to prove the misconduct complained of beyond reasonable doubt. This serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service and involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the official concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4478, consideration 10, 4362, considerations 7, 8 and 10, and 4360, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4360, 4362, 4478
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof;
  

  Consideration 23

  Extract:

  In light of these factors, the Tribunal considers that it was not possible for the Director General to depart from the unanimous opinions of the Disciplinary Board and the Joint Committee for Disputes in the way he did. The grounds he gave in the contested decisions do not meet the standard of a clear and cogent demonstration of the Organisation’s ability to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was guilty.

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; motivation; standard of proof;
  

  Consideration 21

  Extract:

  [A]ccording to the settled case law of the Tribunal, the level of proof to which the Organisation is subject in disciplinary matters is proof beyond reasonable doubt (see, for example, Judgments 4478, consideration 10, and 4247, considerations 11 and 12) [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4247, 4478
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4674

  
  136th Session, 2023
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.

  Considerations 9-10

  Extract:

  A difficulty with this approach of the Board is that while it may be true, based on its findings, that the complainant should have known, and possibly inferentially did know, “some” of her conduct was harassment, the Board made no finding that this was true of all the conduct charged against her as misconduct and proven to its satisfaction. This is not a case where each alleged act of misconduct was identified, separately, as warranting the sanction of dismissal. It was the aggregation of conduct “creating a hostile work environment over an extended period of time” which underlay the decision to dismiss. Additionally, one instance where the complainant had caused staff to cry occurred within two years of the complaint against her being lodged by the Staff Association in September 2016. Her complaint about lack of warning was directed to events over the entire preceding nine years comprehended by the charges, which events occurred, in the main, before 2014.
  In the impugned decision, the Director effectively repeated this flawed analysis of the Board though, significantly, omitted the word “some” (referred to earlier) in saying that “the Board found that your conduct was ‘so clearly out of bounds that [you] could not help but know that it was improper’”. As just discussed, no such compendious finding was made by the Board in relation to all the conduct relied upon by the Director in confirming the dismissal of the complainant by rejecting her appeal. This material flaw in the analysis by the Director was compounded by her saying that the complainant’s assertion that the Director of Administration and the HRM Director “tolerated” her conduct did not provide the complainant with a defence when her actions were so obviously a violation of the Harassment Policy. This comment is not motivated save to the extent that it involved a purported adoption of what the Board had concluded. No such general conclusion had been reached by the Board […].

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; final decision; misconduct; motivation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4491

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  [T]here has been a clear reluctance, or indeed refusal, to accept what the complainant said was true. Obviously, a person who is guilty of fraud may well often lie and contrive false facts to avoid the consequences of their fraudulent conduct. Equally obviously, an organisation must be alive to this possibility when investigating and dealing with conduct of a member of staff believed or suspected of being fraudulent. But in the present case, proof of the hypothesis that the complainant’s narrative and explanation were false and she acted fraudulently involved an unfair and distorted analysis of the facts. The Tribunal is satisfied a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the charge alleged could not properly have been made.

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary procedure; evidence; fraud;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  The case law of the Tribunal in a situation such as the present is clear. A staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgment 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof of allegations of misconduct falls on the organisation and it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (see, for example, Judgment 4364, consideration 10). In reviewing a decision to sanction a staff member for misconduct, the Tribunal will not ordinarily engage in the determination of whether the burden of proof has been met but rather will assess whether a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see, for example, Judgment 4362, considerations 7 to 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4362, 4364
  

  Keywords:

  benefit of doubt; beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; presumption of innocence; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4478

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of delayed advancement to the next salary step for a period of 20 months, pursuant to Staff Rule 10.1.1.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  As to the issue of the standard of proof, the complainant submits, in his fifth plea, that WIPO erred in applying the “clear and convincing” standard of proof. He adds that due to its failure to meet its prima facie obligation to prove the complainant’s misconduct beyond reasonable doubt, WIPO violated the complainant’s rights to due process and equal treatment. It is true that the Tribunal clearly stated that the applicable standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (see, for example, Judgment 3649, under 14, and Judgment 4247, under 11-12). But the standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service, as stated in Judgment 4360, consideration 10, and Judgment 4362, considerations 7, 8 and 10:
  “Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the ‘criminal’ standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the ‘civil’ standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities.”
  The Tribunal notes that Staff Rule 10.1.2(d) of WIPO provides that the applicable standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is “clear and convincing evidence”. In the present case, it is clear that the facts underlying charge of misconduct are uncontroverted. The reference by the Director General to the “clear and convincing evidence” standard does not detract from the fact that, in substance, the standard of beyond reasonable doubt was met.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 4247, 4362
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4364

  
  131st Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  It has been clearly established in the Tribunal’s case law that misconduct must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 12, 4227, consideration 6, and 4106, consideration 11, as well as the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4106, 4227, 4247
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  In Judgment 4227, consideration 6, the Tribunal said: “The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, was summarised in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled that the ‘Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).” Also, in Judgment 4247, consideration 12, in response to a similar argument made by the complainant in that case, the Tribunal said: “It is clear that the facts underlying the charge of misconduct are uncontroverted. The reference by the Director General to the ‘clear and convincing evidence standard’ does not detract from the fact that, in substance, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt was met. As the assertion that [the Organization] failed to prove the complainant’s misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt is unfounded, it is rejected.” In the present case, even though the Disciplinary Committee did not expressly use the term “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s misconduct was in fact proven to that standard.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3862, 4227, 4247
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; misconduct; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4362

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

  Considerations 7-8 and 10

  Extract:

  The relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 3863, consideration 11). Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence (see Judgment 3863, consideration 8).
  The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
  [...]
  The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact, the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4360

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

  Considerations 10-11

  Extract:

  The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
  [...]
  The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4011

  
  126th Session, 2018
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  In the Tribunal’s view, the material contradictions in their evidence required providing the complainant with an opportunity to challenge Ms E.L.’s statements. The failure to provide that opportunity at any stage of the disciplinary proceedings breached the complainant’s due process rights. Accordingly, these charges could not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 3882, under 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3882
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; due process;