|
|
 |
|
|
Appraisal of evidence (147,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Appraisal of evidence
Total judgments found: 36
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4027
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the internal appeal body’s consideration of the appeal is vitally important and, in particular, enables the official to decide whether or not to bring further proceedings, notable before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal found in Judgment 3424, under 11, that, “apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). [...] [T]he [a]ppeal body plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof.”
In this case, the Appeal Board’s report, consisting of five essential points, does not provide full details of the disputed competition procedures, since the Board merely presents its findings without listing the complainant’s arguments or providing a preliminary discussion allowing its position to be understood. This very succinct report does not enable the Tribunal to ascertain whether the Board considered the disputed competition procedures in sufficient depth. Since the plea of a breach of the right to an effective internal appeal is well founded, the impugned decision must be set aside for that reason, without there being any need to rule on the complainant’s other pleas concerning the lawfulness of the internal appeal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2811, 3424
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"With regard to the claims against the JAAB’s analysis of the investigation, the Tribunal recalls that it will only interfere in the case of a manifest error in the JAAB’s assessment of the facts (see Judgment 2295, under 10). Though it has read and considered all the elements submitted to it, the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence that was presented to the JAAB. The complainant’s plea concerning the absence of oral hearings is unfounded. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2893, under 5, in relevant part: “the general principles applicable to […] an appeal body [do not] require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities.” (See also Judgment 3023, under 11.) The complainant was indeed allowed to submit her written appeal in full, and in fact she also attached hundreds of annexes to be considered. The Tribunal finds that to be more than sufficient opportunity to present her case and considers that the JAAB was fully informed about the case and did not need to grant her request for oral proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 623, 2295, 2893, 3023
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
"The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Absolute privilege also operates to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. A tribunal would not be independent and impartial, nor seen to be so, if it were to assume the role of dictating to the parties the evidence and arguments that they can advance in their cases. That is not to say that a tribunal cannot control its own proceedings by, for example, excluding irrelevant evidence or striking out scandalous pleadings. Nor does it mean that a tribunal cannot draw inferences by reason of the nature of the evidence or argument presented, including in appropriate cases, adverse inferences as to the motive of the party relying on that evidence or argument. But if the evidence or argument is relevant to the issues to be decided, it is for the parties alone to determine whether they will rely on it. And because the parties must have that freedom or privilege, a tribunal cannot apply sanctions in separate proceedings with respect to the evidence or arguments advanced, particularly not after the proceedings have been completed. Were it otherwise, there would be no finality to litigation."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; evidence; independence; judicial review; submissions;
Judgment 2973
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment.
"[T]he long delay seriously compromised the integrity of the investigative process. In addition to the diminishing recollection of events with the passage of time, potential witnesses are no longer available. As well, with the passage of time, it may be that those individuals in the Administration responsible for ensuring the protection of the staff member concerned are no longer with the Organization. If so, this would effectively preclude any accountability for the failure to protect a staff member if a finding of harassment were to be made."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; delay; evidence; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; liability; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The Tribunal concludes that the Joint Advisory Committee's finding, in turn endorsed by the Director General, namely that the complainant was responsible for the publication of the article, was tainted by the failure to consider the evidence against the correct standard of proof, by error of law, and by the drawing of adverse inferences which were not supported by the facts. Accordingly, the impugned decision must be set aside."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; decision; judicial review; liability;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Hearsay evidence is not necessarily inadmissible. The question is always one of its probative value."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; evidence;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In support of his argument that he was denied due process by the [Investigation] Panel the complainant relies on Judgment 2254 where it was said that, "before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him". That statement relates to the situation where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. However, and as its name suggests, the function of the Panel was to investigate. Contrary to the arguments of the complainant, the requirement that it "assess the reliability of the source or sources of information and the evidence submitted" does not render it a judicial body. The assessment of the reliability of evidence is a function that is properly described as "judicial" only when reposed in a judicial body."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation - that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case - is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the "investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made". At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475, and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he obligations of an employer to act in good faith and to respect the dignity of its employees determine what is permissible. In particular, these considerations require that an investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; condition; good faith; inquiry; investigation; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Judgment 2254
95th Session, 2003
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"According to firm precedent, before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him. ... Failing a valid waiver on the part of the complainant of the adversarial proceedings provided for in the staff rules, the Director-General incorrectly based his decision on information that was not gathered in the context of adversarial proceedings guaranteeing the complainant's right to be heard. Since the complainant was not given the opportunity to put forward a proper defence, this fundamental flaw must cause the impugned decision to be set aside."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2213
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In his application for review "the complainant contends that the Tribunal failed to rule on requests for the disclosure of documents by the organization [...] A plea that the Tribunal failed to rule on claims is related to a complainant's submissions on the merits; by contrast, decisions by the Tribunal on requests for the disclosure of documents concern the administration and appraisal of evidence and cannot, in principle, give rise to review."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a claim;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that either there was sufficient admissible evidence of the guilt of the complainant as an accused staff member or there was not. If there was not enough admissible evidence to convince the person making a decision, the charge should have been dismissed; if there was enough such evidence, then there should have been a finding of guilty. What is not permissible is to take a stand somewhere between the two, which is what the [Joint Appeals] Board did."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; due process; evidence; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2009
90th Session, 2001
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant was suspended without pay for three months after being accused of making a false declaration and submitting false information to a court of law. The Joint Disciplinary Board found that there was sufficient evidence to prove his wrongdoing. "The Tribunal is satisfied that the Joint Disciplinary Board was entitled, having weighed the evidence, to draw the conclusions it did. It found that the complainant's explanations were not credible and rejected them. Where doubt does not exist, the question of the benefit of the doubt does not arise. So the complainant cannot succeed on the plea that his employer was bound to accept that he had made a mistake. The Board was fully justified in its findings."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; benefit of doubt; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; fitness for international civil service; general principle; misconduct; misrepresentation;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 1796
86th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The statements by the representative [of the organization] and by the complainant are at odds and there is no irrefutable evidence before the Tribunal. The conclusion is that what was needed was a proper inquiry to see whether on the strength of reliable evidence the charges against him stood up.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; misconduct;
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 1661
83rd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant has applied for hearings to take evidence from several witnesses and from himself [...]". The Tribunal holds that there is no need for hearings or from the taking of evidence from the proposed witnesses and gives six reasons why.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; evidence; oral proceedings; refusal; right to reply; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 1539
81st Session, 1996
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Inasmuch as the letters of appointment say nothing of 'local' or 'non-local' status, the Tribunal will treat the facts of the case as decisive. A contractual provision on status would be necessary only if the matter were uncertain or if the parties had agreed that she should have a status different to the status that the facts determine. Since such agreement would involve a waiver by the complainant of her rights of non-local status, it may not be presumed in the absence of clear evidence of such waiver."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; contract; evidence; intention of parties; local status; non-local status; place of origin; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1248
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant "applies to the Tribunal for appointment of an expert to inquire into the scientific issues. His application is disallowed because the evidence he submits casts no doubt on the soundness of the medical opinion the organisation is relying on. For the same reason the Tribunal rejects his application for hearings."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; appraisal of evidence; expert inquiry; further submissions; medical opinion; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
