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 1996
89th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"In Judgment 1821 the Tribunal recalled that where a methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure (see Judgment 1682 [...]). [...] However, departure from the index given as an orientation in the Staff Regulations requires more than just a statement of proper reasons. In order to protect staff against arbitrariness, the criteria relied on to deviate from the orientation suggested by the external index must be objective, adequate and known to the staff (see Judgment 1912, under 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1682, 1821, 1912
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; burden of proof; criteria; duty to substantiate decision; interpretation; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;
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 1875
87th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"An international organisation is liable for the material and moral damages resulting from the injury caused to a staff member by his superior (acting in the course of his duties and not in a private capacity) by treatment that is an affront to the staff member's personal and professional dignity (Judgment 1609 [...]); and for victimisation consequent upon improper treatment (Judgment 1376 [...]). A staff member is entitled to have his good name vindicated by the organisation when a superior makes false allegations against him and to redress for the harm caused ([see] Judgment[s] 1340 [and] 1344 [...]). When a third party makes false allegations against a staff member, the organisation should communicate its view that the allegations are without foundation (Judgment 1376 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1340, 1344, 1376, 1609
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; compensation; injury; liability; material damages; material injury; misuse of authority; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; supervisor;
Judgment 1851
87th Session, 1999
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The organization rejected the complainant's application for a temporary job covering the duties he had performed until then under short-term contracts. The defendant contends that the decision was based on its practice which established an age limit. "It is a well-established principle that the existence of written law does not need to be proved: the presumption juris et de jure assumes cognisance of written law. However, non-written rules have to be proved by those who invoke them. In the material case, the Tribunal has not found the slightest proof of the alleged practice. It cannot decide on a rule whose existence has not been proven. The absence of proof as to the existence of the rule invoked by the union means that its decision has no legal basis."
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; practice; presumption; written rule;
Judgment 1827
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; judicial review; limits; procedural flaw; promotion; qualifications; satisfactory service; selection board; work appraisal;
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 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;
Judgment 1715
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"In order to be a 'dependent spouse' someone must be not only the dependant but also the 'spouse' of the staff member. As a general rule, and in the absence of a definition of the term, the status of spouse will flow from a marriage publicly performed and certified by an official of the State where the ceremony has taken place, such marriage being then proved by the production of an official certificate. The Tribunal accepts, however, that there may be de facto situations, of which 'traditional' marriages are examples, and which some States recognise as creating the status of 'spouse'. In each such case where there is no definition of 'spouse' it will be up to the staff member to prove not only the existence of the relevant fact but also the precise provisions of local law which give it consequences and the exact nature of those consequences, and he must show that such law is applicable in the context of the Organisation's Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
burden of proof; definition; dependant; domestic law; evidence; insurance benefits; marital status; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1606
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant's case is that his earning capacity has been impaired, not directly, but merely indirectly in that travel is essential for any employment for which he is suited and his condition [following a service incurred accident] has made it difficult, if not impossible, for him to travel. The burden therefore lay on him in the internal proceedings to show that any suitable employment would entail an appreciable amount of travel."
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; incapacity; injury; professional accident; service-incurred;
Judgment 1548
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The grounds for non-renewal being deterioration from 1990 in the complainant's performance and conduct, "the burden is on the Organization to show that its decision rested upon proper appraisal of the complainant's performance. [...] All the reports up to September 1990 having been satisfactory, the Organization's failure to have proper appraisal reports made since then is a flaw in the decision."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; conduct; contract; decision; different appraisals; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; period; procedural flaw; rating; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 1441
79th Session, 1995
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant relies on a rule which says that members of the Disciplinary Committee [composed in this instance of staff members from headquarters and constituted there] should come from the staff of the Regional Office and have been locally recruited. The Tribunal considers that "the rule [in question] is not binding" and states that "in any event the complainant has failed to show how the membership of the committee [composed in this instance of staff members from headquarters and constituted there] might have proved prejudicial to the proper and independent consideration of his case."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 110.2(D)
Keywords:
advisory body; burden of proof; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; duty station; injury; lack of injury; safeguard;
Judgment 1436
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As was said for example in Judgment 1223, the Tribunal will not interfere with comparison of candidates in a competition. Only when it appears that the choice rests on a mistake of fact or law or that there has probably been misuse of authority will the Tribunal order the defendant to produce further evidence so that it may review such comparison."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; candidate; case law; competition; due process; evidence; further submissions; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; presumption of innocence; qualifications; selection procedure;
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 35
Extract:
"There will be misuse of authority where the administration exercises it for some purpose other than those prescribed by law or, to put it more broadly, those that the general interest requires. A staff member who pleads misuse of authority, and the Tribunal that allows the plea, must be able to identify the improper purposes for which the authority [...] has been exercised."
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; definition; evidence; misuse of authority;
Consideration 36
Extract:
The complainant objects to the actuarial method which the organisation used in a study of the pension fund's foreseeable costs. "Like any public authority, the EPO enjoys a presumption in its favour - especially when it is taking technical measures and it has done thorough preparatory work - that its choice of actuarial method is the most suitable and the fairest. [...] It is of course open to a staff member under a system of administrative law to challenge the organisation's choice, but he must be able to adduce evidence to show why the chosen method, when compared with others, may suffer from technical flaws that should have disqualified it."
Keywords:
actuarial valuation; burden of proof; contributions; discretion; evidence; increase; judicial review; mistake of fact; organisation; pension; reckoning; right of appeal;
Judgment 1391
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Decisions taken by the organisation are subject to review on grounds such as bias, bad faith, malice and abuse of authority. When seeking to defend his interests by impugning any such decision, an employee is entitled to allege and attempt to establish such grounds. A fair decision cannot be reached upon such matters by an internal appeals body or by this Tribunal if witnesses, parties and their representatives are unable to speak candidly and without the risk of incurring a penalty for what they may say, and especially if one party is unduly inhibited by the fear that failure to prove his case my make him liable to disciplinary action by the other party."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; complainant; complaint; disciplinary measure; evidence; freedom of speech; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; misuse of authority; submissions; testimony; tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was subject to disciplinary action for having made statements, some of them before the Tribunal, which allegedly impaired the organisation's and the Tribunal's reputations. The Disciplinary Committee asked whether the punishment of offensive remarks "for which there is no clear justification supported by evidence" would infringe the complainant's rights. The Tribunal holds that "such a test laid an undue burden on the complainant in that if he was to avoid the risk of disciplinary action he must prove the truth of his allegations. No such burden should have been put on him. The mere failure to prove the truth of his allegations did not mean that he had either abused his freedom of speech or forfeited the immunity or privilege of judicial proceedings."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; criteria; disciplinary measure; evidence; freedom of speech; organisation's reputation; submissions; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1384
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was accused of removing computer equipment from the work place. The organization accordingly decided not to renew his fixed-term appointment. After carrying out an inquiry, the regional director submitted a first report which "showed that there was at most mere suspicion that the complainant might have been involved. There was no basis on which the organization could contend that the charge of theft had been satisfactorily proved. What it did in effect was to reverse the burden of proof by expecting the complainant to show that hisconduct was 'spotless'."
Keywords:
burden of proof; conduct; contract; evidence; fixed-term; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; presumption of innocence;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant was accused of removing computer equipment from the work place. For that reason the organization decided not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The decision not to renew the complainant's contract was based on loss of confidence consequent upon the finding of misconduct. That finding was based on an error of law as to the burden of proof; rules of procedure relating to the right of defence were seriously violated; essential facts were not taken into consideration; and clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts. so the finding cannot stand, and the plea of loss of confidence which the organization based thereon must be rejected."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; conduct; contract; disregard of essential fact; evidence; fixed-term; misconduct; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
Judgment 1380
78th Session, 1995
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant "did not suffer any injury which hampered her career and is therefore not entitled to any award of damages. The mere fact that a decision was initially flawed does not suffice to warrant awarding her damages for moral injury. The flaw was [later] corrected [...] to be entitled to moral damages she must show that she has suffered more severe injury than that which an improper decision ordinarily causes."
Keywords:
burden of proof; criteria; damages; decision; evidence; flaw; formal flaw; lack of evidence; lack of injury; moral injury; professional injury;
Judgment 1373
77th Session, 1994
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Medical Board based its findings on the lack of "conclusive" evidence. "But that was not the standard of proof it was required to apply." Referring to Judgments 528 and 641, the Tribunal holds that what is required is no more "than a balance of probability in favour of what the complainant is alleging.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 528, 641
Keywords:
burden of proof; case law; evidence; medical board; standard of proof;
Judgment 1340
77th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The onus of proof lies on the organisation to bear out its allegations and insinuations and not, as the organisation submits, on the complainant to show them to be untrue. In the absence of any proof of their accuracy, the assumption must be that they are untrue."
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; lack of evidence; moral injury; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 1275
75th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is "the complainant who is under the duty to meet the conditions for the grant of family allowances."
Keywords:
burden of proof; dependant; social benefits; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1262
75th Session, 1993
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
The complainant objects to a decision not to extend his appointment. "The complainant was involved in the layout and design of the staff magazine, which, he says, was at times critical of the ESO. [...] The charge of victimisation, which is easy enough to make, has to be supported by serious evidence. The complainant has failed to discharge the burden that lies on him to prove the charge against the Observatory. For one thing, he was not even an official of the Staff Association. For another, his allegation that he was victimised merely because he helped with the publication of the magazine is unsupported by a shred of evidence."
Keywords:
burden of proof; contract; decision; evidence; fixed-term; freedom of speech; harassment; hidden disciplinary measure; non-renewal of contract; staff representative;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
