Evidence (144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Evidence
Total judgments found: 236
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 2100
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The Tribunal points out 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 2067, [...], under 5 and 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; moral injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2098
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant denies having signed an agreement for the termination of his appointment. He asked for a signed copy of the agreement but the organization cannot provide it. "The facts show beyond all doubt that the complainant accepted the [organization]'s offer. His attitude [is] tantamount to an admission that he did agree to the termination of his appointment. This is further borne out by the fact that he raised no objection when the agreement was implemented. The concurrence and reciprocity between the parties would in itself constitute sufficient evidence that a contract existed even in the absence of proof of a written agreement."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; complainant; contract; enforcement; evidence; intention of parties; lack of evidence; offer; request by a party;
Judgment 2067
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
To prove he is the victim of harassment, the complainant relies on facts dating back several years. "Contrary to the [organization's] assertion, the complaint is receivable, there being nothing to prevent the complainant from citing an accumulation of events over time to support an allegation of harassment".
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; complaint; evidence; exception; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2062
91st Session, 2001
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal's practice is to consider any items that are material to the case".
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; practice; submissions; tribunal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not use [the confidential documents submitted by the organisation] to the complainant's detriment unless he has had the opportunity to see them beforehand".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; right to reply; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 2058
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [Organization] contends that assessments already given by the Tribunal are not open to challenge and considers that several paragraphs of the complaint should be discounted under the res judicata rule. the plea fails: the decision challenged in the present dispute is not the one addressed in [a previous] judgment [...], so the complainant may rely on all such evidence and testimony as he deems appropriate to support his pleas."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; complaint; decision; evidence; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; testimony;
Judgment 2028
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal does not dispute the principle of delegation of authority (see Judgment 1386 [...]); however, when a complainant calls for proof that power has in fact been delegated to a specific person, it is a matter for the organisation to produce such proof."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1386
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; delegated authority; disclosure of evidence; evidence; general principle; organisation's duties; request by a party;
Judgment 2016
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As emphasised by the [organisation], the applicable interim Staff Rules provide that the education grant is calculated on the basis of expenses actually incurred. The complainant cannot therefore claim grants calculated on the hypothetical basis of the costs that would have been incurred had he remained in service."
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; burden of proof; condition; education expenses; evidence; family allowance;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17(D)
Extract:
The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; due process in disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; evidence; witness;
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that either there was sufficient admissible evidence of the guilt of the complainant as an accused staff member or there was not. If there was not enough admissible evidence to convince the person making a decision, the charge should have been dismissed; if there was enough such evidence, then there should have been a finding of guilty. What is not permissible is to take a stand somewhere between the two, which is what the [Joint Appeals] Board did."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; due process; evidence; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2009
90th Session, 2001
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant was suspended without pay for three months after being accused of making a false declaration and submitting false information to a court of law. The Joint Disciplinary Board found that there was sufficient evidence to prove his wrongdoing. "The Tribunal is satisfied that the Joint Disciplinary Board was entitled, having weighed the evidence, to draw the conclusions it did. It found that the complainant's explanations were not credible and rejected them. Where doubt does not exist, the question of the benefit of the doubt does not arise. So the complainant cannot succeed on the plea that his employer was bound to accept that he had made a mistake. The Board was fully justified in its findings."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; benefit of doubt; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; fitness for international civil service; general principle; misconduct; misrepresentation;
Judgment 2007
90th Session, 2001
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Under the provisions [of the Staff Regulations], a contract may be terminated for unsatisfactory performance only after the employee has been served with a formal written warning allowing him or her three months to improve. That period which essentially aims at allowing the employee concerned enough time as may be constructively used to correct mistakes, make good shortcomings and improve both behaviour and working relations with other staff members must cover an effective period of three months during which the employee must be in a position to perform his or her duties correctly and to make full use of his or her abilities. The Tribunal considers that in this instance the complainant was not in such a position."
Keywords:
duty to inform; evidence; injury; medical fitness; notice; period; qualifications; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant on several occasions filed claims and received reimbursement for duty travel in business class while he had in fact travelled in economy class, pocketing the difference. [...] There is no evidence to support the complainant's contention that this fraud was condoned or approved by the Agency and [...] his suggestion that his fraudulent practice was widespread amongst other Agency personnel, which is likewise not supported by any evidence at all, is wholly irrelevant: even if all the Agency's officers had been defrauding it in the same manner as the complainant, that would constitute no excuse for him. Where several persons commit the same crime, the guilt of one is not lessened by that of the others."
Keywords:
conduct; evidence; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; official travel; practice; serious misconduct; travel expenses;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant refused to avail himself of his right to respond to allegations during the internal investigations of his serious misconduct. "In these circumstances, the complainant's request for a hearing is manifestly unjustified. The complainant has offered no evidence at any stage of the proceedings against him, therefore, such a hearing could not possibly add anything to the record before the Tribunal."
Keywords:
evidence; misconduct; oral proceedings; refusal; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;
Judgment 1961
89th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that "in Judgment 139 [...] the Tribunal made it clear that it did not consider the assignment of the duties of an abolished post to other staff members as an indication that there had been an abuse of authority, provided that the evidence showed that the number of staff members was in fact reduced." It affirms this case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 139
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; case law; condition; evidence; misuse of authority; staff reduction;
Judgment 1942
88th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A general principle of law [...] has it that for a claim for damages to be entertained, the complainant must provide evidence of the actual injury and of a causal link between the unlawful act and the injury suffered."
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause; evidence; general principle; injury; material damages; moral injury;
Judgment 1894
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is not for the complainant [...] to judge whether the information requested by [the insurance company] is necessary in order to enable it to assess her claims. That is a matter for the professional assessment of [the insurance company] and its medical adviser and the Tribunal would not interfere unless it was satisfied that the information was being sought for some abusive or improper purpose."
Keywords:
evidence; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical examination; medical expenses; staff member's duties; tribunal;
Judgment 1825
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1796
86th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The statements by the representative [of the organization] and by the complainant are at odds and there is no irrefutable evidence before the Tribunal. The conclusion is that what was needed was a proper inquiry to see whether on the strength of reliable evidence the charges against him stood up.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; misconduct;
Judgment 1791
86th Session, 1999
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"In support of their plea that the impugned decision rested on wrong reasons and wrong conclusions [the complainants] contend that [the Organization] was mistaken in its explanation: there was in fact no financial crisis warranting a compulsory pay cut. [...] The plea fails. The evidence [...] shows that [the Organization's] member States had not been spared the economic and financial plight of Europe at the time and so were much less able to fund the Organization. That was why [...] they had to think again about the budget [...] and demand a big cut. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that [the Organization] did not give wrong reasons or draw any blatantly wrong conclusions."
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; grounds; mistaken conclusion; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1784
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Under Manual paragraph I.2.510 the Organization is empowered to require that the original bills be attached to the form that the staff member must fill up to claim the education grant. It does not have to accept evidence of the sort the complainant is offering. It will evaluate any alternative proof he may produce in the absence of the bills. Original documents must have gone astray before, and it is often possible to reconstitute them. It is up to the Organization to decide - subject to review by the Tribunal - whether the proof offered is satisfactory."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH I.2.510 OF WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; allowance; application for execution; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; education expenses; evidence; judicial review; lack of evidence;
Judgment 1781
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant submitted that the Director-General had verbally promised him three step increments at his grade. On the evidence there is no denial by the Director-General on that point. The Tribunal holds that: "While the Director-General may communicate within the Organization through others acting on his behalf, the best evidence available must be offered in proceedings before the Tribunal. In this instance it would have been direct denial by the Director-General himself."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; evidence; executive head; lack of evidence; promise;
Judgment 1775
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his 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 [...] the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification."
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; complainant; evidence; lack of evidence;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
