|
|
 |
|
|
Liability (48,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Liability
Total judgments found: 50
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4241
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Consideration 24
Extract:
[T]he finding of harassment, which has been reached at the end of proceedings to which the persons called into question are not party and in which they have therefore been unable to comment, may not under any circumstances be used against them in any context other than that of the instant judgment. The conclusion is, however, that WHO/UNAIDS, which have a duty to protect each of their officials, have incurred liability towards the complainant on account of this harassment and must therefore be ordered to redress the injury which she has thus suffered.
Keywords:
harassment; liability;
Judgment 3946
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amounts she was awarded for the delay in processing her request for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 17
Extract:
A claim for compensation for “actual and consequential” injuries is an entirely different claim that extends an organisation’s liability beyond its liability under a no-fault regime. As the Tribunal has consistently held, establishing such a claim requires proof of negligence on the part of the organization or the intentional breach of a duty (see Judgment 2843, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2843
Keywords:
injury; liability; negligence;
Judgment 3215
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; material damages; negligence; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred; working conditions;
Judgment 3106
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The law of defamation is not concerned solely with the question whether a statement is defamatory in the sense that it injures a person’s reputation or tarnishes his or her good name. It is also concerned with the question whether the statement was made in circumstances that afford a defence. Broadly speaking, the defences to a claim in defamation mark out the boundaries of permissible debate and discussion. As a general rule, a statement, even if defamatory in the sense indicated, will not result in liability in defamation if it was made in response to criticism by the person claiming to have been defamed or if it was made in the course of the discussion of a matter of legitimate interest to those to whom the statement was published and, in either case, the extent of the publication was reasonable in the circumstances."
Keywords:
freedom of speech; liability; limits; mitigating circumstances; moral injury; publication; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3086
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The European Patent Office paid the full amount of the costs occasioned by the complainant's move from Germany to France after he retired. The complainant emphasises that the removal firm did not do its work properly and caused him material injury. In his opinion, the EPO has incurred liability, particularly because it had urged him to place the move in the hands of that firm.
"[W]hen an international organisation defrays the removal expenses of an official or former official, it does not follow that it becomes a party to the contract between the person concerned and the removal firm. Neither of the parties to this private law contract acts on behalf of the organisation. For the latter, the contract is res inter alios. This is all the more understandable given that it has no means of ascertaining whether the contract has been performed satisfactorily or, if necessary, of establishing the damage resulting from faulty performance."
Keywords:
contract; liability; material injury; organisation; payment; procedural flaw; removal expenses; retirement;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Where [...] a person relies on an exception to escape liability, it is for that person to establish that his actions fell within the exception."
Keywords:
burden of proof; exception; liability;
Judgment 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, when an organisation is ordered to grant a financial benefit to a staff member who fulfilled the legal requirements for claiming it, but who failed to do so as soon as his/her entitlement arose, the benefit in question is due only as from the date of the initial claim by the person concerned, and not the date on which he/she became entitled to the benefit ([...] see Judgment 2550, under 6, or Judgment 2860, under 22). There would be no justification for ordering an organisation unexpectedly to pay potentially large, backdated, aggregated sums for benefits which had not been claimed by the staff member concerned when he or she should have done so. [...] [Moreover] it is true that the position would be different if the Organization itself were responsible for the fact that the [staff member] did not submit a claim [at that time]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2550, 2860
Keywords:
amount; condition; date; delay; exception; judgment of the tribunal; liability; marital status; medical expenses; non-retroactivity; organisation; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[I]t is well settled that statements made in good faith in response to criticism or attack do not attract liability for defamation."
Keywords:
liability; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 2973
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment.
"[T]he long delay seriously compromised the integrity of the investigative process. In addition to the diminishing recollection of events with the passage of time, potential witnesses are no longer available. As well, with the passage of time, it may be that those individuals in the Administration responsible for ensuring the protection of the staff member concerned are no longer with the Organization. If so, this would effectively preclude any accountability for the failure to protect a staff member if a finding of harassment were to be made."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; delay; evidence; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; liability; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal's case law has it that an international organisation which has mistakenly overpaid an official must take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment of the sum in question - at least the full amount thereof. Relevant circumstances include the good or bad faith of the staff member, the sort of mistake made, the respective responsibilities of the organisation and the person concerned for the causes of the mistake and the inconvenience to which the staff member would be put by repayment that is required as a result of the organisation's oversight (see Judgments 1111, under 2, and 1849, under 16 and 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1849
Keywords:
case law; cause; condition; consequence; equity; good faith; liability; mistake of fact; official; organisation; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; refund; request by a party;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was charged with misconduct in relation to the publication of an article which reflected badly on WIPO, WIPO's Director General and her former supervisors. Disciplinary sanctions were imposed on her, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years. She challenged the imposition of sanctions, denying any responsibility for the publication of the article and arguing that they were tailored to specifically delay her promotion, which the Tribunal had ordered in Judgment 2706. The Tribunal found that the evidence fell far short of establishing the complainant's responsibility.
"The determinative issue in this complaint centres on the finding that the complainant was responsible for the publication of the article. It is well established that the individual accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent. It is equally well established that the accuser bears the burden of proof. WIPO does not deny that it bears the burden of proof but submits that the standard of proof is "precise and concurring presumptions". The Tribunal does not accept this submission. In Judgment 2786, under 9, it held that in the case of misconduct the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; bias; burden of proof; evidence; liability; misconduct; presumption of innocence;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The Tribunal concludes that the Joint Advisory Committee's finding, in turn endorsed by the Director General, namely that the complainant was responsible for the publication of the article, was tainted by the failure to consider the evidence against the correct standard of proof, by error of law, and by the drawing of adverse inferences which were not supported by the facts. Accordingly, the impugned decision must be set aside."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; decision; judicial review; liability;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 89
Extract:
"There will be an award of moral damages [...], but account will be taken of the complainant's contributing behaviour."
Keywords:
liability; moral injury;
Judgment 2843
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4 and 6
Extract:
As a result of slipping on liquid in the Office's underground car park, the complainant suffered a fracture of the leg.
"The complainant contends [...] that the Office breached the duty of care owed to its employees by failing to provide a safe work environment. He maintains that the Office was negligent in its cleaning and maintenance of the car park and claims that it should have been mopped instead of just swept on a weekly basis and that the security staff were not specifically trained to check for and report oil or water stains."
"Given the nature of the premises, namely a car park, it cannot be concluded that it was reasonable for the Office to take measures in addition to those that were in place at the time of the accident. In particular, it cannot be concluded that it should have arranged for the mopping rather than the sweeping of the floors. Moreover, it has not been established that, even if additional measures had been taken, they would have eliminated the risk of injury. Accordingly, negligence has not been established and the complaint must be dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 435, 2533, 2804
Keywords:
general principle; invalidity; liability; material damages; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred;
Judgment 2656
103rd Session, 2007
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was accused of having deliberately made false allegations of misconduct against other staff members. At the end of the disciplinary procedure he was dismissed for serious misconduct. "[A]lthough it is not correct to equate deliberate falsehood with reckless indifference to the truth in all circumstances, the nature of the allegations may be such that there is little, if any, room for difference in the consequent sanction. The more serious the allegation, the greater is the need for care. In the present case the allegations were indeed serious, and were of a kind which, in the absence of cogent evidence, should never have been made. That being so, there was no error in this case in equating the appropriate sanction for reckless indifference with that for deliberate falsehood. The complainant showed a callous disregard for the feelings of the persons concerned and a lack of judgement that was wholly incompatible with the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant. In the circumstances, these matters do not warrant a finding that the disciplinary action was disproportionate to the conduct in question."
Keywords:
breach; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; freedom of speech; lack of evidence; liability; misconduct; official; proportionality; respect for dignity; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 2540
101st Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 30
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 442 that:
«As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable.»
To that should be added the rider that the duty to act in good faith and, also, the duty to respect the dignity of a subordinate require that the subordinate be given an opportunity to answer any criticism made and that his or her answers or explanations be fairly considered."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
allowance; consequence; difference; equity; general principle; good faith; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2471
99th Session, 2005
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Following a reorganisation the post the complainant held in the Department of General Services (AGS) was transferred to another department. In December 2002 she was reassigned to AGS, though in a different position. She asks to be given back the duties and responsibilites she had in AGS prior to the reorganisation. "The Tribunal considers that this request cannot be granted, for it would imply undoing the reorganisation and reversing the technological changes that have been made, which, as the complainant herself acknowledges in her submissions, were both necessary and predictable. Her position is thus untenable."
Keywords:
claim; difference; liability; post; post held by the complainant; reassignment; refusal; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has on numerous occasions ruled on the issue of whether an international organisation is bound to comply with general provisions that would infringe the rights of its staff members. The fact that an international organisation belongs to the common system does not enable it to decline or limit its own responsibility towards the members of its staff or lessen the degree of judicial protection it owes them. Any organisation that introduces elements of the common system into its own rules has a duty to ensure that the texts it thereby imports are lawful (on this issue, see Judgment 1265, which refers to Judgments 382 and 825; for more recent examples concerning the duties of the FAO, see Judgments 1713 and 2303). Whilst the Tribunal fully appreciates the difficulties - emphasised by the defendant - that international organisations are liable to face in departing from the salary scales adopted on the basis of ICSC recommendations, it is nevertheless bound to ensure that international law is observed in the relations between the said organisations and their staff, regardless of the external authority from which the decisions taken emanate. Indeed, the case of an organisation having to revise salary scales resulting from recommendations or decisions affecting the common system, whether or not pursuant to a ruling by the competent tribunal, is not without precedent."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 825, 1265, 1713, 2303
Keywords:
adjustment; case law; criteria; decision-maker; icsc decision; liability; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 2403
98th Session, 2005
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"It is not in doubt that an international organisation is under an obligation to take proper measures to protect its staff members from physical injury occurring in the course of their employment. The same is true with respect to loss of or damage to their personal property. As a matter of principle, the same must be true of financial loss suffered in the course of their employment. Particularly is that so where, as here, the loss is directly associated with compulsory participation in a fund established by the organisation and managed in accordance with rules which limit the participants' rights with respect to that fund."
Keywords:
deficiency payment; liability; lump-sum; material injury; organisation's duties; participation; pension; provident fund; right; working conditions;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
