Deference (742,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Deference
Total judgments found: 7

• Judgment 4754

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close his harassment complaint.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  It should be observed [...] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
  “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).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; deference; harassment; investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4753

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  It should be observed […] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
  “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).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4488

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her to another post.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608, 4407
  

  Keywords:

  deference; report of the internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4207

  
  129th Session, 2020
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [I]t must also be observed that it is well settled in the case law that “it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where [an investigative body] has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error” (see Judgment 3593, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence; inquiry; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4010

  
  126th Session, 2018
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The Appeals Committee’s report in the present matter, as it was in Judgment 3969, consideration 11, is a mostly balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3969
  

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4005

  
  126th Session, 2018
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  Contrary to the complainant’s assertions, a reading of the report shows that the DAB engaged in an in-depth consideration of the complainant’s and Ms M.’s submissions, reviewed the relevant case law, specifically considered each of the alleged forms of harassment, the issue of retaliation, and carefully weighed the evidence with which it was provided. It is also observed that the DAB’s conclusions and recommendations were based on a thorough and balanced consideration of all the relevant facts and case law. It is now well established in the case law that such a report warrants considerable deference (see, for example, Judgment 3969, consideration 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
  

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3858

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [T]he report, findings and conclusions of the Appeals Board should be treated with considerable deference.

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body;