Evidence (144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Evidence
Total judgments found: 243
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
In its well-reasoned opinion, the Committee correctly concluded (and the Director-General confirmed in the impugned decision) that due process was observed during the OIGI’s investigation, noting that the complainant had been interviewed and given the opportunity to test the evidence. This is apparent from the information contained in consideration 1 of this judgment. The Committee also concluded, correctly in the Tribunal’s view, and as the Director-General accepted in the impugned decision, the fact that OIGI did not interview persons whom the complainant mentioned during his interview, notably, the two brothers or the CEO of the Political Party, did not violate due process because the complainant had not shown that not interviewing them caused him prejudice.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; investigation; prejudice; witness;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent also has it that where there is an investigation by an investigative body prior to disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 4106, consideration 6, and 3593, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 4106
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4852
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment, by lateral transfer, of another official to the position of Director, FAO Liaison Office in Geneva.
Considerations 12, 14-15
Extract:
What the complainant is arguing is, in substance, that in appointing Ms R.B. the Director-General was making a choice between her and the complainant (and perhaps others), and the failure to choose him was infected by, amongst other things, bias and prejudice towards him. The difficulty with this argument is that there is no direct evidence that such a choice was being made nor can an inference reasonably be drawn that it was.
[…]
As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 4690, consideration 13, when addressing the statement made by the Tribunal in Judgment 3669, consideration 12, and similar cases regarding the reliance on earlier evidence of bias and prejudice to prove the true character of alleged bias and prejudice in later conduct:
“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.”
In this case, the evidence of the complainant and the arguments based on it about prior bias and prejudice is not, in the circumstances, relevant to the legality of the decision to transfer Ms R.B. There was no choice being made of the type on which the complainant’s arguments rely. Accordingly, much of the argument of the complainant is not founded and lacks any admissible evidentiary underpinning.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4690
Keywords:
appointment without competition; bias; burden of proof; evidence; prejudice;
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Appeals Board carefully analysed, in detail and over several pages, the evidence concerning the factual question of whether there had been notification to the complainant. It observed, correctly, that the burden of proof that notification had been given fell on the person who sent the document, in this case the Organization, citing Judgment 3871, consideration 9. Its analysis and conclusion that the Organization had not proved that notification had been given is unexceptionable and certainly does not reveal a manifest error. In the impugned decision of 23 August 2021, the Director General accepted the pivotal significance of the factual question about notification. […] [The Director General] challenged the reasoning of the Appeal Board. But, in the face of that reasoning, his analysis is unpersuasive.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; executive head; medical opinion; notification;
Judgment 4849
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to convert his fixed-term appointment into a continuing or permanent appointment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The second contention is based on a premise that there was a practice that a staff member on a fixed-term contract would, at the end of their fifth year of appointment, be offered the choice of having their contract converted into a continuing appointment at that point, or wait a further two years before having their contract converted into a permanent appointment. The complainant contends his treatment did not accord with this practice and involved unequal treatment. But again, in the main, the complainant supports the existence of this practice, and its breach, by generalised assertions, though he does descend into some specifics. However, the Tribunal’s case law requires that “allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts” (see, for example, Judgment 4238, consideration 5). The concept of “precise and proven facts” entails sufficiently detailed and persuasive evidence to establish that there had been unequal treatment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4238
Keywords:
burden of proof; duration of appointment; evidence; extension of contract; permanent appointment; practice; renewal of contrat; unequal treatment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Fundamental to the first contention is the fact that the decision, as explained by the complainant in his pleas, “was based on the personal prejudice which perniciously lay hidden behind the unlawful initiation of the unlawful investigation process against [him]”. This is a reference to the investigation leading to the laying of charges of misconduct against the complainant on 14 December 2016. This is tantamount to a claim of bad faith which must be proven and cannot be presumed (see, for example, Judgment 4753, consideration 13). But beyond generalised assertions, the complainant provides no persuasive evidence which directly, or inferentially, establishes personal prejudice of the type relied on.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; evidence; personal prejudice;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Cases can arise where an inference can be drawn that an alleged practice does exist, largely because of the refusal or failure of the organisation to provide documents requested by a complainant intended to prove the existence of that practice. One example, relied on by the complainant, was Judgment 3415, particularly considerations 6 to 9. In the present case, the complainant recounts his unsuccessful attempts to obtain, during the processes internal to the organisation, documentation intended to prove the existence of the practice. However, what he has failed to do in these proceedings before the Tribunal is exercise, if necessary, his ability under the Tribunal’s Rules, specifically under Article 9, paragraph 6, to secure documents from WIPO which would prove, in an evidentiary sense, the existence of the practice he asserts. The inference drawn in Judgment 3415 was substantially based on the refusal of the defendant organisation to produce the discovery documents requested by the complaint in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In that matter, the Tribunal made it clear that the defendant organisation should have, in the face of the discovery request, produced the documents. In the present case, the absence of a request or, ultimately if necessary, procuring an order under Article 9, paragraph 6, militates against drawing an inference that the asserted practice existed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3415
Keywords:
burden of proof; disclosure of evidence; evidence; extension of contract; permanent appointment; practice; renewal of contrat;
Judgment 4839
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although in some specific situations the Tribunal may determine whether the harassment occurred (see, for example, Judgments 4241, consideration 15, and 4207, consideration 21), in the present case, the Tribunal is not in a position to determine whether the complainant’s complaint of sexual harassment is well founded, as neither the parties’ written submissions nor the evidence presented before it allow it to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4207, 4241
Keywords:
evidence; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; submissions;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he case law states that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony, and, for that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 4764, consideration 7). Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4444, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4444, 4764
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; judicial review;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 36, 38-39 and 46
Extract:
Established precedent in the Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff member’s right to due process entails that the organization 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 staff member concerned. In this regard, a staff member is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 12, and 4491, consideration 19). In this respect, in Judgment 4047, consideration 6, the Tribunal recalled that it is equally well settled that it will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, it 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 also Judgments 4764, consideration 13, 4697, consideration 22, and 4364, consideration 10).
[…]
In its submissions, the organization has not pointed to any definition of serious misconduct short of arguing that, in its view, the complainant’s conduct even amounted to the equivalent of gross negligence. Also, it has not pointed to any jurisprudence of the Tribunal that establishes conduct of the type in question in these proceedings is serious misconduct or gross negligence. It is not disputed though that misconduct is quite different from serious misconduct and, here, the contention of the organization against the complainant is not that she committed misconduct but that she rather committed serious misconduct.
That being so, the Tribunal considers that ITU has manifestly failed to provide evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant committed serious misconduct or gross negligence in the present situation. The record indeed easily supports the conclusion that a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt with regard to an allegation of serious misconduct could not have been made properly by a primary trier of fact. To equate, as ITU did, the failures identified both in the notification of the disciplinary measure and in the impugned decision to a serious misconduct or a gross negligence was an error of law.
[…]
It follows […] that, on the facts of this case and considering the conduct identified by the organization in support of the disciplinary measure imposed on the complainant, a finding of serious misconduct established beyond reasonable doubt was clearly not open to any primary trier of fact on the record as it stands. The contrary conclusion reached by ITU was an error in law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4047, 4364, 4491, 4697, 4764
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; evidence; standard of proof;
Judgment 4782
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.
Consideration 5
Extract:
On the material available to the Tribunal in [the] complaints, it was not established that the complainants worked on shifts outside working hours. They cannot now do so in their application for review, as it travels beyond the scope of review as discussed in consideration 3 […].
Keywords:
evidence;
Judgment 4764
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal said, in relation to both the opinion of an internal appeals body and an investigative body established by the rules of the organization concerned, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12:
“According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), ‘where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)’. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
It is true that the [Global Board of Appeal] did not hear the witnesses in the present case. It did, however, review a large amount of documentary material, including the records of interviews, and made findings of fact based on this material. The opinion of the [Global Board of Appeal] is, on some relevant matters, balanced and considered and has to be given the deference spoken of in the Tribunal’s case law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; internal appeal; investigation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
In relation to the question of whether conduct founding a disciplinary measure has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and what evidence the Tribunal considers, it has said its role is a limited one, as described in Judgment 4362, consideration 7:
“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 [...]”
Plainly enough that role does not require, indeed contemplate, further evidence to be furnished in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The touchstone for error in this regard concerns the evaluation of the evidence by the relevant decision-maker, namely the evidence before him or her.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4362
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; evidence; standard of proof;
Judgment 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law 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 2100, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100
Keywords:
accumulation; burden of proof; evidence; harassment;
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 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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is desirable to refer to the role of reports or opinions of internal appeal bodies in the Tribunal’s consideration of issues raised in a complaint. It has been put in a variety of ways, and comparatively recently in Judgment 4644, consideration 5:
“[If the internal appeal body’s opinion] is balanced and considered, [...] its findings and conclusions must be given considerable deference (see, for example, Judgments 4488, consideration 7, 4407, consideration 3, and 3858, consideration 8).”
Indeed, also comparatively recently, the Tribunal said, in relation to both the opinion of an internal appeals body and an investigative body established by the rules of the organization concerned, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12:
“According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), ‘where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)’. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
It is true that the Board of Appeal did not hear the witnesses in the present case. It did, however, review a large amount of documentary material, including the records of interviews, and made findings of fact based on this material. The opinion of the Board of Appeal is, on some relevant matters, balanced and considered and has to be given the deference spoken of in the Tribunal’s case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3593, 3757, 3858, 4024, 4026, 4091, 4237, 4407, 4488, 4644
Keywords:
evidence; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Joint Disciplinary Committee’s opinion [...] shows that, when establishing the existence of particular facts and assessing the seriousness of the misconduct with which the complainant was charged, the Committee relied to a large extent on video footage of the incident [...] taken by a closed-circuit camera installed at the security post. The Committee used that footage to assess the complainant’s behaviour for almost two minutes before the unfortunate shot was fired, during which, according to the Committee, he stood by while his colleague carelessly handled the weapon that he had just given him. In the first place, this contradicted the account that the complainant gave in memoranda addressed to the Organization’s senior management and during his hearing and, in the second place, showed that he had failed to appreciate the danger of the situation.
However, it is clear from the details contained in the Committee’s opinion that the video footage was watched by only two of the three members of the Committee, who did so [...] between the Committee’s meetings. The Tribunal has already ruled in a similar case that such a practice is irregular in its very principle. Making clear that each member of a collegiate body has an individual responsibility to be fully engaged in the fact-finding process in the case before it, which involves the assessment of the evidence of those facts in terms of its admissibility, reliability, accuracy, relevance and weight, the Tribunal held that the whole panel of such a body is required to consider that evidence and that this responsibility cannot be delegated to one or more of its members (see Judgment 3272, consideration 13). This holding, which was applied to a joint appeals body, must also apply to a collegiate body dealing with disciplinary matters such as Interpol’s Joint Disciplinary Committee. The Tribunal sees no reason here to depart from the case law in question, which seems to it to be salutary, since it is unacceptable for a member of an administrative committee to deliberate on a case without having examined for herself or himself a piece of evidence examined by the other members – which is thereby placed, by definition, in the file of that case – especially if, as in the present case, that committee actually uses the piece of evidence in question as a foundation for its opinion. The procedure followed was therefore flawed on that account.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3272
Keywords:
disciplinary body; due process; evidence;
Judgment 4615
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Considerations 20 and 23
Extract:
The case law relied upon by the organisation (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18, cited below), correctly interpreted, does not allow exceptions to the necessity of a written record being made available to the concerned official, but only approves of a written record as an alternative to cross-examination or to a verbatim record. Indeed, the Tribunal held in that judgment:
“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 [...], to object to evidence [...] or to have a verbatim record of the evidence [...] 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 [...] 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.”
In the precedent quoted above, the complainant was informed of the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by written records before the decision; in the present case, the complainant acknowledged the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by means of the Advisory Board’s report, not during the proceedings but only when that report was provided to her attached to the termination decision, that is to say at a stage when she could no longer usefully comment on them.
It can be inferred from the quoted case law that two principles must be respected in an adversarial procedure: (i) not only must the oral evidence gathered be recorded in writing, even though not necessarily by a verbatim record; (ii) but also any evidence gathered must be submitted to the person concerned, for her or his comment, before the decision is adopted.
In the present case, the organisation failed to comply with both principles, as there was no written record of Mr B.’s statement and this statement was not disclosed to the complainant before she was notified of the decision endorsing the Advisory Board’s report.
[…]
In light of consideration 20 […], the Advisory Board’s recommendation is flawed with regard to the assessment of offensive act no. 1 for lack of written record. However, this flaw is not decisive in order to declare that the Advisory Board’s recommendation was unlawful in its entirety. As noted in considerations 21 and 22 [...], the Advisory Board’s finding that the complainant’s conduct amounted to harassment was based on multiple episodes and related evidence sufficient for the purpose of the adoption of measures aimed at the protection of the victim of harassment. Therefore, the Board’s report deserves considerable deference (see Judgments 4488, consideration 7, and 4180, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 4180, 4488
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; report of the internal appeals body; witness;
Judgment 4579
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, the verbatim record of the oral evidence gathered during disciplinary proceedings is not deemed strictly necessary. It is sufficient that the person charged in disciplinary proceedings be informed of the precise allegations made against her or him, provided with the summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the body in charge of the investigation, and enabled to comment on them (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771
Keywords:
due process; evidence; investigation; witness;
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 4511
134th Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the new final decision made pursuant to the Tribunal’s order in Judgment 3905 concerning the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law states that documents from informal settlement processes are not admissible in the Tribunal as they should not be disclosed in the more formal process (see Judgment 3586, under 5, recently confirmed in Judgment 4457, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4457
Keywords:
agreed termination; confidentiality; evidence;
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;
Judgment 4474
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application to review Judgment 4360.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; due process; evidence;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The essence of the argument is that the admission of the evidence was not authorised. However, the relevant question is whether it was prohibited. A legal aphorism deployed in some domestic legal systems is that rules of procedure should be a servant and not a master. It is apt to apply to this Tribunal. Ordinarily a judicial tribunal ought to be able to adopt procedures in a given case to meet the overriding objective of determining a fair, lawful and just outcome. Unless a particular procedure is prohibited expressly or by necessary implication by a normative legal document binding the judicial tribunal or by entrenched case law, the tribunal can on proper grounds adopt, as a matter of discretionary assessment, procedures to achieve that overriding objective. This Tribunal did so in the present case.
Keywords:
evidence;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The fresh evidence adduced in the surrejoinder was [...] deployed by the Tribunal to assess and decide what relief was appropriate. Necessarily that decision must be made by reference to facts and circumstances known at the time of the assessment, which may include facts and circumstances that were not known when the decision to dismiss was made. Very commonly this would entail an assessment, in a case of unlawful dismissal, whether an order of reinstatement was appropriate. That, in turn, often raises for consideration the passage of time between the dismissal and when a remedy is being considered, including the possible prejudice to the organisation if reinstatement were ordered. While this case was extremely unusual if not extraordinary, it simply cannot be suggested that the fresh evidence in this case was not relevant to remedy. It was and that was the use made of it by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
effective date; evidence; reinstatement; surrejoinder;
Judgment 4453
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 6
Extract:
These remarks do not come to grips with what Mr R. said nor provide a sound basis for rejecting his evidence. To say someone is “evidently personally offended by what he considers to be an attack to his mandate” is firstly equivocal and secondly and more importantly does not provide, of itself, a firm foundation for saying that Mr R.’s account of past events cannot, or even should not, be accepted as true. It is not at all obvious that if a person is personally offended in the circumstances just discussed, that would “[prevent] [her or] him from being a reliable and objective witness” let alone someone who is giving a false account of past events.
Keywords:
evidence; witness;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >
|
