Burden of proof (148,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Burden of proof
Total judgments found: 245
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >
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;
Judgment 3192
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and not to renew her contract as linked to the harassment she allegedly experienced.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that:
“[a]lthough 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.” (See Judgment 1775, under 7.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 3137
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t was for the Organization to establish misconduct beyond reasonable doubt and, this being a dismissal case, the complainant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2786, consideration 9). However, the burden of proof was effectively reversed when he was dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
burden of proof; standard of proof; termination of employment;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Where [...] a person relies on an exception to escape liability, it is for that person to establish that his actions fell within the exception."
Keywords:
burden of proof; exception; liability;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]n accordance with the principles governing the burden of proof when determining the receivability of complaints, it is up to the organisation which intends to rely on late submission to establish the date on which the impugned decisions were notified (see Judgments 723, under 4, or 2494, under 4). Since the Agency has failed to produce any acknowledgement of receipt or other document attesting to the date on which the decisions in question were notified, it has not furnished proof of the alleged late submission.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 723, 2494
Keywords:
burden of proof; final decision; late filing; notification; time bar;
Judgment 2930
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[I]n the event of disciplinary measures, the staff member concerned enjoys a presumption of innocence and [...], in accordance with the principle in dubio pro reo, he or she must be given the benefit of the doubt (see in particular Judgment 2351, under 7(b)). The burden of proof lies with the Organization which intends to take disciplinary action against a staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2351
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; general principle; in dubio pro reo; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"[T]he existence of a hidden disciplinary measure cannot be inferred from mere conjecture and could not be accepted unless it were proven."
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"It does not follow that, because the Administration has failed to prove misconduct, the charge of serious misconduct was "specious" or part of a campaign of bullying and intimidation, as claimed by the complainant. On that issue the complainant bears the onus of proof. And as the evidence [...] is inconclusive, his claims in this regard must be rejected."
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; misconduct; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was charged with misconduct in relation to the publication of an article which reflected badly on WIPO, WIPO's Director General and her former supervisors. Disciplinary sanctions were imposed on her, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years. She challenged the imposition of sanctions, denying any responsibility for the publication of the article and arguing that they were tailored to specifically delay her promotion, which the Tribunal had ordered in Judgment 2706. The Tribunal found that the evidence fell far short of establishing the complainant's responsibility.
"The determinative issue in this complaint centres on the finding that the complainant was responsible for the publication of the article. It is well established that the individual accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent. It is equally well established that the accuser bears the burden of proof. WIPO does not deny that it bears the burden of proof but submits that the standard of proof is "precise and concurring presumptions". The Tribunal does not accept this submission. In Judgment 2786, under 9, it held that in the case of misconduct the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; bias; burden of proof; evidence; liability; misconduct; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that the complainant has shown no proof of bias against her on the part of the Organization. In fact it appears that the Organization was diligent in the exercise of its duty of care towards the complainant, as seen in the repeated attempts at mediation and the care in offering her multiple opportunities to contribute to the post classification process through updated job descriptions and other relevant submissions."
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; organisation's duties; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2849
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct.
"It is well established in the Tribunal's case law that where misconduct is denied, the onus is on the Administration to prove the misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, staff members are to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2786, under 9)."
"Although the complainant argues otherwise, the evidence gathered [...] clearly establishes misconduct beyond reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant's plea that the decision not to invite him to an assessment was not based on objective and transparent criteria and was arbitrary appears to be grounded on the complainant's view that other less meritorious and less senior candidates were invited to participate in the assessment centre. Given that a key requirement identified in the vacancy note was managerial skills, in the absence of some evidence showing that the complainant possesses managerial ability or that he has the potential to be a good manager, the complainant's assertion is speculative at best."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; evidence; promotion; seniority;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >
|
