Standard of proof (725,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Standard of proof
Total judgments found: 28

< previous | 1, 2

• Judgment 3880

  
  124th Session, 2017
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s finding of misconduct and the imposition of the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for two weeks, and claims excessive delay in the disciplinary and internal appeal proceedings.

  Considerations 8-9

  Extract:

  It is “well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed” (Judgment 3649, under 14). It is also well established that a staff member accused of misconduct is presumed to be innocent (Judgment 2879, under 11) and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (Judgment 2849, under 16). It is observed that the FAO did not cite nor is there any support in the case law for its position before the Appeals Committee that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard did not apply in this case. Moreover, it conflates two distinct parts of the misconduct process: the finding of misconduct (if proven beyond a reasonable doubt) and the subsequent imposition of an appropriate sanction for the misconduct.
  Based on a reading of the Appeals Committee’s report and the Director-General’s impugned decision, it appears that in each instance the standard of proof applied was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of misconduct. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct is a far less onerous evidentiary burden than the requisite “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. The application of the incorrect standard of proof is a fundamental error of law and requires, on this ground alone, that the impugned decision be set aside.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2849, 2879, 3649
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3848

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his special short-term contract for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [T]here is nothing in the record indicating if or when the Director General determined that the serious misconduct had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If he did rely on the conclusion reached in the Investigation Report, that reliance was misplaced. Such a conclusion was clearly beyond the scope of the Investigation Team’s mandate and Terms of Reference that were limited to fact-finding. [...] This was the expression of an opinion that does not belong in a fact-finding report, was highly prejudicial to the complainant and undermines the fairness of the reporting.

  Keywords:

  inquiry; investigation; investigation report; serious misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3649

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General of the IAEA to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [I]t is useful to reiterate the well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. It is equally well settled that the “Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made” (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; evidence; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• 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 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 635

  
  54th Session, 1984
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant denies that she was ever in gross breach of the duty of discretion. She claims never to have been in touch with journalists neither herself nor through anyone else. "She can go no further than that since it is impossible to adduce evidence to rebut the charge. Her statement that she did not commit the misconduct she is charged with shifts the burden of proof to the organization. The Tribunal will not require absolute proof, which is almost impossible to provide on such a matter." A set of precise and concurring presumptions would be sufficient.

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; duty of discretion; evidence; misconduct; organisation; presumption of innocence; serious misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 172

  
  26th Session, 1971
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  "Th[e] charge [of attempted theft] was brought by the shop manager [...] eleven days after the incident to which it related. [The complainant] immediately denied the charges and gave a totally different and at first sight not improbable version of the incident. The Personnel Officer of the Regional Office, appointed by the Regional Director to make an inquiry, merely heard the statements of the shop manager who had brought the charges, and of three of his employees, only one of whom had apparently witnessed the alleged attempted theft."

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; damages; disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 170

  
  25th Session, 1970
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "Even assuming that the project manager was at fault, the complainant's guilt is not thereby ruled out. [I]n short, all the circumstances of the case suggest that the complainant's guilt should be regarded as established with a probability approaching certainty."

  Keywords:

  conduct; evidence; standard of proof;
  

< previous | 1, 2