Bias (572,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Bias
Total judgments found: 145
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | 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 4608
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decision to maintain Office Instruction No. 10/2016, promulgating, inter alia, the discontinuation of the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Section.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is […] well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias (see Judgment 4097, consideration 14) and that, moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 2472, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 3380, 4097
Keywords:
bias;
Judgment 4553
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover sums which were unduly paid to him as dependent child allowance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant [...] contends that the IAC opinion was biased. According to him, the two representatives appointed to the IAC by the staff representation and their alternates were under an ever-present threat of disciplinary measures if they complained to the Organisation about their high workload on the IAC.
The Tribunal observes, however, that the complainant does not adduce the evidence of such a lack of impartiality required under its case law (see, for example, Judgments 4422, consideration 17, and 4097, consideration 14). Mere suspicions and unproven allegations are plainly insufficient in this regard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4097, 4422
Keywords:
bias; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4543
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the allegation of lack of impartiality, the Tribunal recalls that, under settled case law (see, in particular, Judgments 3192, consideration 13, 3314, consideration 9, 3380, consideration 9, and 3914, consideration 7) the complainant bears the burden of proving bias or partiality. Moreover, the evidence adduced must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that the allegation is well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3192, 3314, 3380, 3914
Keywords:
bias; personal prejudice;
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;
Judgment 4516
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
As the complainant has not substantiated his allegations that the decision to close the case was taken for an improper purpose amounting to abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3172, consideration 16, and 3939, consideration 10) or that it was based on bias (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 9); that it was tainted by personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3912, consideration 13) or bad faith (see, for example, Judgment 3902, consideration 11), there is no basis on which to grant exemplary damages which he claims (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092, 3172, 3902, 3912, 3939, 4010
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; exemplary damages; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 17
Extract:
To support their allegations that the Appeals Committee’s opinion is biased, the complainants submit that the means of redress before the Appeals Committee do not meet the minimum judicial standards. Their allegations of bias are based in some respects on scandalous allegations concerning the Chair of the Appeals Committee. Moreover, the complainants’ allegations of bias on the part of some members of the Appeals Committee are unfounded as they provide no evidence to prove them as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 4097, consideration 14). Additionally, the complainants’ argument that the Appeals Committee’s process does not meet the minimum judicial standards because the President of the EPO sits in the proceedings as a party and judge in his own cause is unsupported with any helpful analysis. Their statement that the Appeals Committee is an advisory body with no competency to make decisions misapprehends the quasi-judicial nature and functions of an internal appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 3785, consideration 6, and 3694, consideration 6). The complainants’ argument that, in deciding to consider their internal appeals in a written procedure without conducting an oral hearing, the Appeals Committee conflates itself with the Tribunal leaving appellants without a fact-finding process does not take into consideration Article 8 of the Implementing Rules for Articles 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations mentioned in consideration 11 of this judgment. In the foregoing premises, the allegations of bias are unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3694, 3785, 4097
Keywords:
bias; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4407
132nd Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award her moral damages higher than 20,000 Swiss francs for the moral injury she alleges to have suffered as a result of the personal prejudice and bias she endured during her probation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
bias; complaint dismissed; moral injury; probationary period;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The situations [the complainant] describes in her submissions to the Tribunal show clear issues of mismanagement but do not support a finding of personal prejudice and/or bias against her specifically.
Keywords:
bias; prejudice;
Judgment 4382
131st Session, 2021
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decisions to set aside her 2016 performance appraisal only on the basis that it was procedurally flawed, and to insert in her personnel file the impugned decision and the report of the Appeals Commission.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias and that, moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. 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 (see, for example, Judgments 2472, under 9, 3380, under 9, and 4097, under 14).
With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal has stated that 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 her or 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, for example, Judgment 3912, under 13). The Tribunal has also stated, in the context of alleged inaccuracies in a staff report, that it is not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it is 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 (see, for example, Judgment 2930, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 2930, 3380, 3912, 4097
Keywords:
bias; performance evaluation; prejudice;
Judgment 4261
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of a decision to assign her additional duties on a temporary basis.
Consideration 10
Extract:
If a complainant alleges that a decision was not taken in good faith or was taken for an improper purpose, she or he bears the burden of establishing the lack of good faith, bias or improper purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4146, consideration 10, 3743, consideration 12, and 2472, consideration 9). It is a serious allegation that must be clearly substantiated.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 3743, 4146
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4170
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reports for the 2010-2011 biennium and the decisions to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2012, to withhold that increment on that date and to not renew her fixed-term appointment for unsatisfactory service.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in CAP 403 in the presentation of the parties’ arguments, and the Appeals Board noted that the complainant “makes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] report”. However, the Appeals Board failed to respond to these allegations, perhaps considering the flaws that it had identified sufficient to substantiate its recommendations. The Appeals Board did not therefore ascertain whether the complainant’s unfavourable performance rating and the non-renewal of her appointment owed to prejudice or other extraneous factor, as required under paragraph 5(b) of the Board’s Statutes, which was hence breached. Furthermore, that provision merely illustrates the general principles that apply in this matter, regardless of whether they are laid down in any rule or regulation.
Keywords:
bias; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4097
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing bias or personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4010
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of establishing bias and has failed to do so (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The following basic principles as stated, for example, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, guide the Tribunal where a decision such as this is challenged:
“The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, under 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).”
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1827, consideration 6:
“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.”
However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must comply with the relevant rules and the case law. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13:
“When an organisation wants to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law. [...] The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti. See Judgments 107[...], 729 [...], 1071 [...], 1077 [...], 1158 [...], 1223 [...] and 1359 [...].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1827, 3652
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice; selection procedure;
Judgment 3960
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision in which the Administrative Council decided to further maintain his suspension while reducing his salary by half until a final decision had been made in his case.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In this case, concurring with Judgment 3958, the ratio decidendi is the following: as it might reasonably be thought that the President was directly, specifically and individually offended by the misconduct for which the complainant was charged, he could not take part in any individual proceedings regarding the allegedly identified author of the alleged misconduct. The President’s participation in these proceedings has given rise to the unlawfulness of the individual decisions impugned with the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest; decision quashed;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the present case, there is a conflict of interest on the part of the President. It stems from the fact that the alleged serious misconduct, with which the complainant was charged, might reasonably be thought to have offended the President specifically, directly and individually. This situation, by itself, casts doubts on the President’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the President would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. The argument raised by the President in his opinion to the Council (CA/C 6/15) [...], namely that pursuant to the applicable rules the President was acting within his competence and had the power and duty to take all necessary steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the Office, is immaterial. The question of a conflict of interest only arises if the official is competent. Accordingly, the question of competency is not an answer to a charge of a conflict of interest. Hence, the Administrative Council erred in not finding that the President had a conflict of interest in the matter. In this situation, in accordance with the provisions in force, the Administrative Council should have sent the matter back to the next most senior official to exercise authority instead of the President, who was precluded from exercising authority because of his conflict of interest (see Judgement 2892, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest;
Judgment 3927
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the Director General was biased against her and that his decision to suspend her was vitiated by malice against her for her role as a staff representative. These allegations are unfounded. She has not provided any persuasive evidence to substantiate them, whereas the consistent case law of the Tribunal requires that such allegations be proved, since bias and bad faith cannot be presumed (see Judgments 3886, consideration 8, and 3738, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3738, 3886
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 3914
125th Session, 2018
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he burden to prove discrimination and bias rests with the complainant [...].
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; discrimination;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal relevantly stated the following in Judgment 1775, consideration 7:
“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, as here, 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
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; evidence; personal prejudice;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
