Bias (572,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Bias
Total judgments found: 145
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4892
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2008-2009 and the decision not to initiate a harassment procedure against her reporting officer.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The third subheading referred to earlier is that “[s]landerous/libellous comments have been disseminated about me”. This is a contention concerning the conduct of Mr T.E. The only relevance of this plea in relation to the staff report would be if the complainant was able to establish that Mr T.E. had been actuated by bias or ill will towards her which infected his assessment of her performance. In the main, the evidence relied upon by the complainant concerns matters of detail including comments to which she takes exception or comments that she views as contradictory, but nonetheless views as proof of bias or ill will. None of the evidence, either in isolation or in aggregate, demonstrates bias or ill will on the part of Mr T.E. in the preparation of the report, which was also the considered conclusion of the Appeals Committee’s majority. While the Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty in proving bias or ill will (see, for example, Judgments 2318, consideration 4, and 2259, consideration 13), nonetheless the burden of doing so falls on the complainant (see Judgments 4745, consideration 12, and 4010, consideration 9). In these proceedings, she has failed to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2259, 2318, 4010, 4745
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 12
Extract:
With respect to his third argument to the effect that there was an absence of objective evaluation since the staff report included subjective, arbitrary and personal elements going beyond the reporting officer’s discretionary power, the complainant has simply not discharged his burden of providing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that his allegations of bias or partiality were well founded (see, for example, Judgments 4713, consideration 12, 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9). The complainant cannot point to any precise indication of bias within the staff report. The comments of the reporting officer indeed point in the opposite direction and include many that praised the complainant’s performance when appropriate.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543, 4713
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4890
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that his allegations of bias are well founded (see, for example, Judgments 4713, consideration 12, 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543, 4713
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Bias and abuse of authority must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4688
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Bias is unproven, as the complainant submits mere assumptions and suspicions, which are unsubstantiated.
Keywords:
bias;
Judgment 4855
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 of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Mr P. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
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 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 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;
Judgment 4841
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that bias, prejudice, and bad faith cannot be presumed, they must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). 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 4745, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4688, 4745
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; prejudice;
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 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation of bias, conflict of interest and breach of impartiality on the part of the investigator, as the Appeals Commission in effect found, the allegation could not be proved on the mere basis that the same investigator had already concluded in his initial investigative report that he (the complainant) was culpable for sexual harassment. As the case law states, such allegation must be substantiated and based on specific facts (see, for example, Judgment 4711, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4711
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest; impartiality; investigation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[A]part from his mere assertion that the investigator was biased because he had refused to incorporate changes he (the complainant) had made in his prior witness statement, the complainant, who, according to the case law stated, for example, in consideration 10 of Judgment 4261, bears the burden of proof, does not explain how bias is proven on that basis.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; investigation;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Bad faith and prejudice must be proven, and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see, for example, Judgments 4745, consideration 12, 4478, consideration 13, 4347, consideration 29, and 3927, consideration 12). 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 Judgment 4745, consideration 12). The fact that the impugned decision contains ambiguous wording does not prove, by itself, that the decision was tainted with bad faith and prejudice against the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927, 4347, 4478, 4745
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
