Burden of proof (148,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Burden of proof
Total judgments found: 284
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 5171
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants request a compensatory allowance to reduce the financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Consideration 12
Extract:
« Dans le jugement 5034, au considérant 14, le Tribunal a rappelé que, «selon une jurisprudence constante, la partialité ne se présume pas et [...] toute allégation de partialité doit reposer sur des éléments de preuve d’une qualité et d’un poids suffisants pour convaincre le Tribunal de son bien-fondé (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4891, au considérant 12, 4713, au considérant 12, 4543, au considérant 8, 4451, au considérant 16, 4408, au considérant 22, et 3380, au considérant 9)».
En l’espèce, force est de constater que les requérants n’apportent aucun élément concret de nature à corroborer leurs allégations tirées d’une prétendue partialité ou d’un conflit d’intérêts. […] »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4408, 4451, 4543, 4713, 4891, 5034
Keywords:
burden of proof; conflict of interest; personal prejudice;
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 20
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law has it that an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proving conflict of interest (see Judgments 4963, consideration 15, 4915, consideration 5, 4711, consideration 5, 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6). The complainant has not discharged her burden of proof. The mere fact that an officer made an unfavourable decision concerning a staff member, or took part in the process leading to such a decision, does not, by itself, imply that such officer would be biased in future decisions concerning the same staff member or, as in this case, in providing testimony [to IOS].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616, 4617, 4711, 4915, 4963
Keywords:
burden of proof; conflict of interest; investigation; witness;
Consideration 18
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal reiterates its firm case law holding that the party asserting abuse of authority, bias, and improper motive must prove it (see Judgments 5001, consideration 6, 4978, consideration 12, 4971, consideration 9, 4524, consideration 15, 4467, consideration 17, 4146, consideration 10, 3939, consideration 10, 2264, consideration 7(a), and 2163, consideration 11). 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 4688, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 2264, 3939, 4146, 4467, 4524, 4688, 4971, 4978, 5001
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
Consideration 24
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls its established case law concerning disciplinary matters. The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, 4491, consideration 19, and 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, and 4364, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4364, 4491, 4858
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 8
Extract:
“The complainant bears the burden of proof: an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it (see Judgments 4746, consideration 12, and 4241, consideration 9).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241, 4746
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment;
Judgment 5150
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant – who claims to have performed duties at a level higher than her grade – challenges the rejection of her request for acting pay.
Consideration 15
Extract:
“Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, bad faith cannot be presumed and must be proven by the evidence (see Judgment 4897, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, as the complainant does not provide evidence to discharge the burden she bears to prove that the decision to reject her request for acting pay was taken in bad faith, her allegation is rejected.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4897
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof;
Judgment 5142
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 7
Extract:
«Dans la mesure où la requérante entendrait fonder sa demande sur un retard excessif dans la procédure de recours interne, le Tribunal relève que les circonstances du présent litige, qui concernaient également de nombreux autres membres ou anciens membres du personnel et nécessitaient tant une interprétation du droit français que des négociations parallèles menées avec les autorités françaises, étaient relativement complexes et sont de nature à justifier en grande partie le temps mis pour statuer sur le recours interne introduit par la requérante. Par ailleurs, il ne ressort pas du dossier que la défenderesse ait fait preuve de mauvaise foi dans le traitement du recours interne de l’intéressée (voir, dans le même sens, les jugements 4671, au considérant 14, et 4670, au considérant 27). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4670, 4671
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; moral injury;
Judgment 5133
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to maintain its earlier decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of discharge from service after due notice and to pay her 50 per cent of the termination indemnity in execution of Judgment 4460.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal has pointed out many times in its case law that bad faith may not be presumed and must be proved (see Judgments 4451, consideration 16, and 4345, consideration 6). The burden of proof is on the complainant, and to support her allegation she must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see Judgment 3902, consideration 11). Similarly, it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory (see Judgments 4391, consideration 13, and 4363, consideration 12). A mere assumption or suspicion of retaliation does not meet the requisite standard of proof, the onus of which is borne by the complainant (see Judgment 4867, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4345, 4363, 4391, 4451, 4867
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; retaliation; standard of proof;
Judgment 5122
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[C]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 4343, consideration 4, 4106, consideration 12, and 3872, consideration 2). The case law also states, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, that the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4749, consideration 5, 4227, consideration 6, and 3862, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862, 3872, 4106, 4227, 4343, 4749
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; limits; manifest error; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Judgment 5113
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is incumbent upon the sender of a document to prove, in the event of any dispute in this regard, that it was actually received by its addressee […]. In the present case, the record shows that the non-renewal decision was sent to the complainant – who was then on sick leave – by an email […]. However, the organisation has provided no evidence establishing that the complainant opened, and thus read, the email, and became aware of the decision it contained, on that date. As noted earlier, the complainant did not acknowledge receipt of the email until 4 July 2022. In these circumstances, the organisation’s objection to receivability, which is based on the unproven assumption that the complainant received the non-renewal decision on 22 June 2022, must be rejected.”
Keywords:
burden of proof; communication to third party; notification;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 13
Extract:
“[A]n allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality must be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses […]. The complainant did not discharge his burden of proving either conflict of interest or bias on the part of the Advisory Board.”
Keywords:
burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that a complainant alleging that an administrative decision constitutes an act of harassment bears the burden of proof: an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it (see Judgments 4746, consideration 12, and 4241, consideration 9). The Tribunal has also held that conduct will not be characterized as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question (see Judgment 2370, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 4241, 4746
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; evidence; harassment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law holds that the party asserting abuse of authority, bias, and improper motive must prove it (see Judgments 4524, consideration 15, 4467, consideration 17, 4146, consideration 10, 3939, consideration 10, 2264, consideration 7(a), and 2163, consideration 11). 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 4688, consideration 10).
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; prejudice;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The same principle regarding the burden of proof applies to retaliation: it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that the actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory (see Judgment 4363, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4363
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; retaliation;
Judgment 5101
141st Session, 2026
International Center for the Registration of Serials
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
« [L]a requérante invoque l’existence d’un conflit d’intérêts dans la personne de l’une des deux interprètes ayant participé à l’audience devant le Comité d’appel, du fait que celle-ci aurait par le passé été partie adverse au conseil de la requérante dans le cadre d’une procédure judiciaire distincte […] [L]’affirmation de l’existence d’un conflit d’intérêts par celui qui s’en prévaut doit reposer sur des faits spécifiques, et non sur de simples soupçons ou hypothèses, et que c’est au fonctionnaire qui en invoque l’existence qu’il incombe d’apporter la preuve d’un tel conflit (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4963, au considérant 15, 4891, au considérant 11, et 4616, au considérant 6) […] la requérante se borne à formuler de simples soupçons et reste en défaut d’apporter une preuve de conflit d’intérêts ou de partialité, étant souligné qu’un interprète ne prend pas part aux délibérations du Comité d’appel en tant que telles. »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616, 4891, 4963
Keywords:
burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Consideration 13
Extract:
« [L]e détournement de pouvoir ne se présume pas et qu’il appartient, en conséquence, à celui qui s’en prévaut d’en établir les éléments constitutifs (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4654, au considérant 22). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4654
Keywords:
burden of proof; misuse of authority;
Consideration 5
Extract:
« Le Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle la charge de la preuve d’un manque d’impartialité incombe à celui qui s’en prévaut et de simples soupçons et des allégations non étayées par une preuve tangible ne suffisent pas à établir un manque d’impartialité de tout ou partie des membres d’un organe collégial de recours (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4842, au considérant 4, 4662, au considérant 13, et 4553, au considérant 7). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553, 4662, 4842
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 22
Extract:
“A mere assumption or suspicion of retaliation does not meet the requisite standard of proof, the onus of which is borne by the complainant […].”
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 5085
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for moral damages following the quashing of an administrative decision by the Tribunal.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that moral damages are awarded only when the complainant proves both the injury suffered and the causal link with the unlawful conduct of the defendant organisation (see Judgments 4626, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, and 4156, consideration 5). The mere fact that a decision was initially flawed does not suffice to warrant awarding damages for moral injury. Instead, the complainant must demonstrate an injury more substantial than that which an improper decision ordinarily causes (see, for example, Judgments 4156, consideration 5, and 1380, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380, 4156, 4157, 4626
Keywords:
burden of proof; moral damages;
Judgment 5057
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour représailles à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[L]e requérant est fondé […] à soutenir que le Conseil d’appel a commis une erreur de droit, car la conclusion en cause repose sur une inversion irrégulière de la charge de la preuve. Il est vrai que, selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, c’est normalement au fonctionnaire se plaignant d’avoir été victime d’actes de représailles qu’il appartient d’établir le bien-fondé de ses allégations (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4391, au considérant 13, ou 4238, au considérant 5). Mais cette jurisprudence ne vaut qu’en l’absence de texte contraire (voir notamment le jugement 4363, aux considérants 11 et 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4238, 4363, 4391
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 5050
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste les décisions prises par l’Organisation concernant la demande de reclassement de son poste.
Consideration 11
Extract:
En vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la mauvaise foi ne se présume pas et ne peut, en conséquence, être retenue que si la preuve en est rapportée au dossier (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4897, au considérant 10, 4675, au considérant 6, 4333, au considérant 15, ou 4161, au considérant 9). Ce même principe jurisprudentiel s’applique en cas d’invocation d’un parti pris défavorable à l’égard d’un fonctionnaire (voir notamment les jugements 4502, au considérant 10, 3914, au considérant 7, et 3380, au considérant 9) ou d’allégation de détournement de pouvoir (voir notamment les jugements 4696, au considérant 17, 4654, au considérant 22, ou 4283, au considérant 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3914, 4161, 4283, 4333, 4502, 4654, 4675, 4696, 4897
Keywords:
abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Consideration 20
Extract:
Selon une jurisprudence constante, il ne peut être fait exception à la règle posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal que si les dispositions statutaires applicables prévoient que la décision en cause n’est, par sa nature, pas susceptible de recours interne, si le requérant n’a pas accès aux organes de recours interne pour des raisons spécifiques tenant à son statut personnel, si, bien que celui-ci ait effectivement contesté la décision en question devant ces organes, la procédure de recours interne a pris un retard excessif et inexcusable, ou encore si les parties ont renoncé, d’un commun accord, à l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne – ainsi que le permet, s’agissant de l’UNESCO, le paragraphe b) de la disposition 111.2 du Règlement du personnel (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4224, au considérant 4, 3947, au considérant 4, 3505, au considérant 1, 3397, au considérant 1, ou 2912, au considérant 6). En outre, c’est au requérant qu’incombe la charge de prouver que l’une de ces conditions est remplie (voir notamment les jugements 3947, au considérant 4, et 3714, au considérant 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2912, 3397, 3505, 3714, 3947, 3947, 4224
Keywords:
burden of proof; exception; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 5026
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct with one month’s notice and the payment of an indemnity, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; delay; disciplinary measure; due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report; investigative body;
Consideration 15
Extract:
In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proving misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt always rests on the shoulders of the international organisation and never, at any point in time in the process, does it shift upon a complainant.
Put differently, the complainant did not have any burden of providing exculpatory evidence. It was rather for WHO to establish that it had conducted a rigorous and thorough investigation, with no stone left unturned.
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 5021
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la liquidation de ses droits à pension.
Consideration 10
Extract:
En ce qui concerne l’argument selon lequel l’Organisation aurait violé le principe d’égalité de traitement en ne lui accordant pas le même avantage qu’au précédent directeur exécutif de la gestion des ressources, qui aurait, selon ses dires, bénéficié de la promesse d’une affiliation au régime permanent de retraite lors de son entrée en vigueur, le Tribunal constate que cet argument n’est assorti d’aucun commencement de preuve. En outre, dès lors que les écritures établissent clairement que ce régime n’est jamais entré en vigueur, toute prétention selon laquelle un fonctionnaire d’Interpol aurait pu en bénéficier de quelque manière que ce soit repose sur un fondement purement hypothétique.
Keywords:
burden of proof; equal treatment;
Judgment 5017
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante considère avoir été privée de ses fonctions par suite d’une restructuration et demande réparation du préjudice qu’elle estime avoir subi en raison de ce qu’elle estime être une résiliation de facto de son engagement.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]l est de jurisprudence constante que la charge de la preuve d’un manque d’impartialité d’un ou de plusieurs membres d’un organe de recours interne incombe à tout requérant. De simples soupçons et des allégations non étayées par une preuve tangible ne suffisent manifestement pas à établir un manque d’impartialité (voir également les jugements 4662, au considérant 13, et 4553, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553, 4662
Keywords:
burden of proof; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 5015
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request for additional medical leave days or compensation, her request for a similar position within another unit, and her request to adjust her position title.
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
The complainant asserts multiple procedural grievances, alleging that the Appeal Board denied her a fair appeal and the possibility of an effective remedy, thereby breaching due process by improperly granting extensions, displaying bias through clarification requests, making inaccurate statements, and disregarding medical evidence. […]
As the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, allegations of this kind can only be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate them (see, for example, Judgments 4099, consideration 11, 3914, consideration 7, and 3543, consideration 20). The complainant failed to discharge her burden of proving such allegations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3543, 3914, 4099
Keywords:
burden of proof; internal appeals body;
Judgment 5014
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request to be reassigned to a different team, and consequently to a different reporting line, as well as her request for a new assessment of her position.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent case law establishes that internal appeals bodies are not obliged to address every individual argument raised, provided their conclusions adequately reflect the essential points considered (see, for example, Judgment 4763, consideration 6). Moreover, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, allegations of bias can only be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate them (see, for example, Judgments 4099, consideration 11, 3914, consideration 7, 3543, consideration 20, and 1775, consideration 7), which the complainant has not provided.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3543, 3914, 4099, 4763
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; internal appeals body; misuse of authority;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
