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 3642
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to fill an Administrative Assistant position.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainants [...] made no attempt to challenge, in a rejoinder, the argument of WIPO. Nor did they attempt to identify in a rejoinder what they say are the applicable principles and, additionally, establish the factual foundation which would result in these complaints being receivable because they can be maintained by the complainants in their individual capacity. In the absence of such evidence it is difficult for the Tribunal to be affirmatively satisfied that the complainants have standing in their individual capacity to bring these complaints. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that the complaints are not receivable in so far as they are brought by the complainants in their individual capacity.
Keywords:
burden of proof;
Judgment 3635
122nd Session, 2016
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants have filed applications for execution of Judgment 3238.
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the rejoinder, one of the complainants [...] requested the reimbursement of the excess baggage charges incurred during the home leave defrayed by the CDE. As there is no evidence on the file supporting this claim, the Tribunal will dismiss it.
Keywords:
burden of proof; material damages;
Judgment 3601
121st Session, 2016
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decisions not to promote him to a post of Inspection Team Leader and not to designate him as an Acting Team Leader.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"It is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that it is incumbent upon an international organisation to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgments 2096, under 9, or 2792, under 7). Moreover, this approach is particularly appropriate in the instant case where the facts needed to prove this matter lie peculiarly in the knowledge of the Organisation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2792
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; patere legem; personal prejudice; selection procedure;
Judgment 3597
121st Session, 2016
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the relief she was awarded as a result of a harassment complaint she filed with the Federation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that it is not enough to claim that an award is insufficient; such a claim must be substantiated by evidence."
Keywords:
burden of proof;
Judgment 3586
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 1775, under 7, reiterated in Judgments 3192, under 13, and 3314, under 9 for example:
“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.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3192, 3314
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3443
119th Session, 2015
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision for the non-renewal of his contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds the complainant bears the burden of proving that he was a victim of retaliation or unequal treatment."
Keywords:
burden of proof;
Judgment 3422
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.
Consideration 14
Extract:
However the method used to calculate the final payments made, as reflected in the payslips, is peculiarly within the knowledge of the employing organisation.
Keywords:
burden of proof;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[The complainant submits that] the composition of the selection panel was flawed. One member of the panel was a person who had been two levels below him in the administrative hierarchy and the complainant had sided with this person’s first level supervisor in not increasing her performance rating. She was thus, the complainant submits, “in a conflicted position”. The complainant also points to the fact that the majority of the members of the selection panel were more junior than him and not able to effectively evaluate his qualifications, experience and performance. Also, changes were made to the recruitment panel which he had not been afforded the opportunity to challenge. Several other specific complaints were made by the complainant about the selection process. However what the complainant singularly fails to do is demonstrate that it is probable some or a number of members
of the selection panel were biased against him or that the panel or selection process was otherwise flawed.
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; composition of the internal appeals body; flaw; selection board;
Judgment 3420
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, the principle of equal treatment requires that staff members in an identical or comparable position in fact and in law be treated in the same manner by the employer organisation (see Judgment 2198, under 14).
The plea that the principle of equal treatment has been breached must be dismissed, since the complainant supplies no proof that a person in the same situation in fact and in law as him obtained the “regularisation of his or her situation” during the period in question."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2198
Keywords:
burden of proof; equal treatment;
Judgment 3414
119th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to remove his name from an e-mail distribution list on the ground that he had been released from his regular duties to work as President of the Staff Council.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he complainant bears the burden of proving that the right has been violated or that he had been discriminated against by the IAEA. In so far as an elected representative alleges breach of the right to freedom of association, it is incumbent on the complainant to prove the breach (see Judgment 2585, consideration 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2585
Keywords:
burden of proof; discrimination;
Judgment 3380
118th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post following a competition and alleges perpetual administrative bias towards him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgment 2472, under 9). It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3347
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is well settled 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 Judgment 2100, under 13, and the case law cited therein). Where the allegation of harassment is based on an accumulation of events, the date of the last event is the date for the purpose of calculating the relevant time limits."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment;
Judgment 3344
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints filed by the complainants acting as elected staff representatives and as staff members and challenging the lawfulness of an investigation procedure manual are dismissed as filed out-of-time.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is that the burden of proof is on the sender to establish the date on which communication was received. If that cannot be done (perhaps because the document was sent by a system of transmission that does not permit actual proof), the Tribunal will ordinarily accept what is said by the addressee about the date of receipt (see Judgment 3253, consideration 7). However these principles do not absolve the Tribunal from evaluating the evidence provided by the parties if there is an issue about date of receipt in the context of an argument about time limits. Examples of the Tribunal doing this can be found in Judgments 3253, considerations 8 to 11, and 2678, considerations 3 to 5."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2678, 3253
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"While the sender bears the burden of proof, [...] this does not absolve the recipient of a document from adducing evidence contradicting or challenging persuasive evidence from the sender about the likely date of receipt. That is particularly so where the facts which would justify a conclusion other than the conclusion suggested by the persuasive evidence provided by the sender, are peculiarly within the knowledge of the recipient."
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification;
Judgment 3314
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests compensation for the injury arising from inaction and delay by the Administration in pursuing her harassment complaint.
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant claims material damages. The Tribunal has stated that a complainant must provide evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to succeed in such a claim. The complainant has not adduced such evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the breaches that the Tribunal found, for which the sum of 25,000 United States dollars is awarded.
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment; material damages; prejudice;
Judgment 3304
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are time-barred and, consequently, clearly irreicevable.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint dismissed; date of notification; time bar;
Judgment 3297
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was dismissed for misconduct following a disciplinary investigation, which found that he had forged and falsified documents.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the evidence presented by the EPO, taken altogether, cannot be ignored. “Those circumstances point convincingly to guilt and there is no credible innocent explanation for them. Further, the explanation offered by the complainant is implausible to a degree and is simply incompatible with the circumstances put in evidence by the Organization” (see Judgment 2231, under 5). [...] “The Tribunal will not require absolute proof, which is almost impossible to provide on such a matter. It will dismiss the complaint if there is a set of precise and concurring presumptions of the complainant’s guilt” (see Judgment 1384, under 10)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1384, 2231
Keywords:
burden of proof; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3286
116th Session, 2014
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Non-extension of a fixed-term contract. Failure to investigate allegations of harassment.
Consideration 27
Extract:
The Tribunal rejected the complainant's claim for exemplary damages.
"No analysis was made by the complainant to demonstrate that there had been bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose, being the bases upon which exemplary damages might be awarded (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092
Keywords:
burden of proof; lack of evidence; punitive damages;
Judgment 3269
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that she was submitted to harassment and denounces flaws in the inquiry relating to her harassment allegations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint dismissed; delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply;
Judgment 3253
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. If that cannot be done (perhaps because the document was sent by a system of transmission that does not permit actual proof), the Tribunal will ordinarily accept what is said by the addressee about the date of receipt (see, generally, Judgments 447, consideration 2; 456, consideration 7; 723, consideration 4; 890, consideration 4; 930, consideration 8; 2473, consideration 4; and 2494, consideration 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 447, 456, 723, 890, 930, 2473, 2494
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; late appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3233
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that she was the victim of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgment 2861, under 37). The question as to whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see Judgment 2553, under 6). There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of the acts in question intended to engage in harassment (see Judgment 2524, under 25), and the Tribunal’s case law has always required that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (see Judgment 2100, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2524, 2553, 2861
Keywords:
burden of proof; conduct; definition; flaw; harassment; official;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
