Burden of proof (148,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Burden of proof
Total judgments found: 217
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 4616
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision finding that she had harassed another staff member and imposing a written reprimand on her.
Consideration 6
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;
Judgment 4596
135th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to pay him a termination indemnity upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 17
Extract:
With regard to the claim for exemplary damages, the complainant has provided no evidence or analysis to establish that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith, or other improper purpose on which to base an award of exemplary damages (see, for example, Judgments 4286, consideration 19, and 3419, consideration 8). Accordingly, no exemplary damages will be awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4286
Keywords:
burden of proof; exemplary damages;
Judgment 4585
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision made concerning the extent of his service-incurred disability, the date until which he should be paid compensation for disability, and the payment of the fees of the medical experts who examined his case.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Regarding the alleged delay in the internal appeal process, […] [t]he Tribunal finds that the length of the internal appeal process was excessive, but the delay was due in part to the difficulties in constituting the Medical Board and in part to the divergent opinions and the submission of supplementary answers by the Medical Board. According to its case law, the Tribunal does not automatically grant moral damages for excessive delay. The complainant must produce evidence of the injury suffered and the causal link between the length of the procedure and the injury (see, for example, Judgment 4493, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the complainant has not proven that he was adversely affected by the delay. Accordingly, his request for moral damages is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4493
Keywords:
burden of proof; delay in internal procedure;
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 4523
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to temporarily reassign him to another post following his allegations of harassment against his supervisor, as well as administrative measures taken in relation to his performance during his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias, prejudice and malice (see, for example, Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 4382, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4382
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; malice;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he delay itself is not enough to award damages. The complainant bears the burden of proof and he must provide evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see Judgments 3778, consideration 4, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6). The Tribunal finds that the complainant has not articulated the adverse effects of the delay and supported them with evidence (see Judgments 4493, considerations 7-8, and 4487, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3778, 4487, 4493
Keywords:
burden of proof; causal link; delay;
Judgment 4505
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has pointed out many times that bad faith may not be presumed and must be proved (see Judgments 4451, consideration 16, and 4345, consideration 6). The burden of proof is on the complainant, and to support his allegation he must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see Judgment 3902, consideration 11). Similarly, the complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing any bias or inequitable treatment (see Judgment 4097, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4097, 4345, 4451
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4502
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends that the Organization was biased against her. However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the burden of proving bias rests with the complainant (see Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 3914, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3914
Keywords:
burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4499
134th Session, 2022
Customs Co-operation Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In accordance with the principles governing the burden of proof when determining the receivability of complaints, it is of course up to the organisation to prove that formalities of this type were complied with (regarding proof of the date of due notification of a decision, for example, see Judgments 723, consideration 4, 2494, consideration 4, or 3034, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 723, 2494, 3034
Keywords:
burden of proof;
Judgment 4485
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Acting in his capacity as a staff representative, the complainant challenges the decision to assign different duties and responsibilities to a Principal Director without a competitive selection process.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A]s the complainant provides no evidence, as required by the case law, to prove that the challenged decision was based on a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3193, consideration 9) or to prove that the President exercised his discretion unlawfully under any of the other proscribed heads referred to in consideration 5 of Judgment 4240, the complaint is unfounded and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3193, 4240
Keywords:
burden of proof; misuse of authority;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal points out that bad faith and bias may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4067, consideration 11, and 4408, consideration 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4067, 4408
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof;
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s contention that the transfer decision was tainted by misuse of authority is unfounded. In consideration 10 of Judgment 4146, for example, the Tribunal recalled that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury. It also observed that in order for there to be misuse of authority, it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the organisation’s interests and that the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised. Misuse of authority cannot be presumed. The complainant has not provided evidence, against conjecture, that shows that his transfer was based on improper purpose.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4146
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; duty of care; evidence; misuse of authority; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4416
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In a case such as the present, the complainant bears the burden of establishing her case (see, for example, Judgment 4381, consideration 31, and the case law cited therein). She has singularly failed to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4381
Keywords:
burden of proof; legal brief;
Judgment 4411
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment as a result of the abolition of her post.
Consideration 15
Extract:
In its pleadings before the Tribunal, the FAO again provided no information regarding the restructuring of LOG. In particular, the FAO did not adduce any evidence as to whether LOG was, in fact, restructured and, if so, when the decision to restructure LOG was taken, in particular, if the restructuring had occurred prior to the decision to abolish the complainant’s post. These were facts within the knowledge of the FAO that the FAO opted not to provide. In this regard, the FAO submits that it was “not legally obliged” to provide the complainant with “documentation on the proposed restructuring”, referring to Judgment 3920, consideration 11, and it emphasises that she has not “adduced any evidence to discharge her burden of proving that extraneous factors motivated the decision to abolish her post”. However, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3415, consideration 9, “[w]hile international organisations are entitled to defend proceedings before the Tribunal, and even do so robustly, it is singularly unhelpful and inappropriate for an organisation to refuse to provide documents sought by a complainant that are patently relevant to his case and then argue that the complainant has not furnished relevant evidence in support of that case”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3415, 3920
Keywords:
abolition of post; burden of proof; evidence; organisation's duties; reorganisation;
Judgment 4381
131st Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to her salary.
Consideration 31
Extract:
[T]he complainant bears the burden of establishing her case (see, for example, Judgments 4094, consideration 17, and 3912, consideration 13). In many respects her pleas are vague and unclear. For example, the basis on which she had, historically, been receiving the dependency rate of pay is not articulated with any precision. It appears from observations in her brief that it was not because she had a dependent spouse but rather dependent children. But she does not establish her calculations of potential future loss as a result of the abolition of the dependency rate are well founded, because, having regard to the age and circumstances of her children, she would have been entitled to the dependency rate for the entire period the transitional arrangements would operate. It would only be in the context of clearly articulated argument by reference to proven or uncontroversial facts, the Tribunal might reach a level of satisfaction that indeed acquired rights have been breached. It would be a large step for the Tribunal to do so and could only be done on a firm foundation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3912, 4094
Keywords:
acquired right; burden of proof;
Judgment 4363
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]n Judgment 4238, consideration 5, the Tribunal recently recalled its case law which has consistently stated that it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4238
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4357
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of establishing retaliation (see Judgment 4261, consideration 10) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4344
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the case on his allegations of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Regarding an organization’s duties where harassment complaints are made, the Tribunal has stated, for example, in Judgment 4207, consideration 15, that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members and that given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself. It further stated that the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context and that upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Moreover, a person who makes a harassment complaint has a duty to substantiate that claim. The Tribunal’s case law states that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see, for example, Judgment 3871, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4207
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4343
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote him by two grades as a disciplinary measure for harassment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that the complainant bears the burden of proving that there was manifest error in the contested fact-finding. The complainant alleges that the Director General’s decision is, in effect, tainted by erroneous fact-finding by OIOS and/or the JDB. He argues that OIOS did not take into consideration his denials to the allegations or other aspects of his evidence or comments which he made during the investigation and on the draft report. However, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3640, consideration 23, the fact that denials were not deemed convincing does not in any way imply that they were not duly taken into consideration.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence;
Judgment 4308
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant’s second argument is that there were irregularities in the investigation process. The difficulty with the complainant’s pleas in this respect is that they constitute a series of assertions about what should have happened by way of investigative steps, what analysis should have been undertaken and criticism of the conclusions reached at various stages in the process. However, no reference is made in support of those assertions to any normative legal document or the Tribunal’s case law that establishes that such steps should have been taken, the analysis undertaken as suggested or any particular conclusion reached.
Keywords:
burden of proof; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4306
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the effective date which has been set for the retroactive reclassification of her post and the undue delay in the reclassification procedure.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[The complainant] provides no evidence of emotional distress or of any other injury or loss suffered. The case law, for example in consideration 5 of Judgment 4156, requires a complainant to provide evidence of the injury suffered as a result of alleged unlawful acts. In the premises, the Tribunal finds that the complainant is not entitled to an award of moral damages [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral injury;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
