Bias (572,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Bias
Total judgments found: 166

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

• 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 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;
  

  
  
  

• 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:

  [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;
  

  
  
  

• 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 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 5099

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract for abandonment of post.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  Regarding the complainant’s allegation of conflict of interest and lack of impartiality in the decision-making, the Tribunal has established through its case law that an allegation of conflict of interest must be substantiated through concrete evidence demonstrating actual prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 4891, consideration 11). A conflict arises only where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality. The complainant’s reliance on mere suspicion or conjecture fails to meet this evidentiary threshold. The Executive Director’s endorsement of the Appeal Board’s recommendation does not, in itself, create objective partiality. The fact that the Executive Director rendered both the initial decision and the final decision is unexceptionable given that it is contemplated in the Employee Handbook (see, for similar examples, Judgments 4815, consideration 7, 4540, consideration 4, and 3352, consideration 6). The complainant has not discharged her burden of proving conflict of interest, lack of independence, or violation of due process.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3352, 4540, 4815, 4891
  

  Keywords:

  bias; conflict of interest; due process; evidence;
  

  
  
  

• 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 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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5034

  
  140th Session, 2025
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019, ainsi que les décisions subséquentes de «geler» son avancement d’échelon et de la soumettre à un plan d’amélioration des performances, de même que le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [I]l y a lieu de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante, la partialité ne se présume pas et que 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). Or, en l’espèce, force est de constater que la requérante n’apporte à l’appui de ses affirmations aucun élément concret de nature à corroborer son allégation.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4408, 4451, 4543, 4713, 4891
  

  Keywords:

  bias;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5003

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that bias and prejudice must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof. In order to support his allegation, the complainant must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4505, consideration 9, and 3902, consideration 11). Similarly, the complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing any bias or inequitable treatment (see Judgment 4097, consideration 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4097, 4505
  

  Keywords:

  bias; burden of proof; unequal treatment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5002

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following her refusal to accept two reassignment proposals.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  WHO states that this complaint is receivable only to the extent that it concerns the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment and the related decisions to place her on SLWFP and to pay her three months’ salary in lieu of notice. It submits that any arguments relating to matters that are the subject of other proceedings should be disregarded as being outside the scope of this complaint. Whilst the Tribunal agrees with WHO that claims concerning these matters are outside the scope of the present complaint, it may consider them as pleas to support the complainant’s allegations that the decision to terminate her appointment was tainted by bias, retaliation and abuse of authority.

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bias; misuse of authority; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5001

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her in the context of the 2019 Mobility Exercise.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  WHO states that it does not object to the receivability of this complaint insofar as it pertains to the complainant’s claims relating to UNAIDS’ decision to reassign her to the position of Fast-Track Adviser in Malawi […] it asks the Tribunal to disregard, as outside the scope of this complaint, other claims or references the complainant makes relating to her request for acting pay, her challenge to two decisions not to select her for P-5 level posts […] and a decision concerning home leave. […] Whilst the Tribunal agrees with WHO that claims concerning these matters are outside the scope of the present complaint, it notes the complainant’s statement which suggests that such pleas may be relevant to support her allegations that the decision to reassign her to Malawi was tainted by bias, retaliation and abuse of authority. The Tribunal may only consider these pleas as such.

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bias; misuse of authority; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The [Global Board of Appeal] then recalled the case law in consideration 6 of Judgment 3748 and consideration 9 of Judgment 3380 to the effect that the complainant bears the burden to prove allegations of bias and to establish that the actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory and the evidence produced must be of sufficient weight to persuade the Tribunal, and, further, that reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations. By reference to consideration 14 of Judgment 4863, the Tribunal confirms that these are the applicable principles, including to prove allegations of abuse of authority, and notes, further, the statement in that consideration that the existence of a hidden disciplinary measure cannot be inferred from mere conjecture and could not be accepted unless it were proven.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3748, 4863
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; retaliation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4996

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who filed a harassment complaint, challenges the decision to close the investigative process at the preliminary evaluation stage.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [F]orce est de constater que ces nouvelles assertions ne sont, contrairement aux exigences de la jurisprudence du Tribunal en matière d’allégations de partialité, assorties d’aucune preuve. Elles ne sauraient donc, en tout état de cause, être retenues (voir notamment les jugements 4553, au considérant 7, 4422, au considérant 17, ou 4097, au considérant 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4097, 4422, 4553
  

  Keywords:

  bias; burden of proof; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4995

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the terms on which he was reimbursed for his disabled child’s educational costs.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [F]orce est de constater que ces nouvelles assertions ne sont, contrairement aux exigences de la jurisprudence du Tribunal en matière d’allégations de partialité, assorties d’aucune preuve. Elles ne sauraient donc, en tout état de cause, être retenues (voir notamment les jugements 4553, au considérant 7, 4422, au considérant 17, ou 4097, au considérant 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4097, 4422, 4553
  

  Keywords:

  bias; burden of proof; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4988

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who was a patent examiner in the area of competence G01R in Berlin, contests the general decision to close that area of competence as well as the individual decision to reassign him pursuant to that closure.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s firm case law holds that the party asserting abuse of authority, bias, and improper motive must prove it (see, for example, 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 organisation, 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
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4986

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant has not discharged his burden of proof in demonstrating that the reporting and the countersigning officers acted partially or lacked objectivity (see, for example, Judgment 4637, consideration 17). […]
  As regards the complainant’s allegation regarding the alleged unsubstantiated, discriminatory, and arbitrary setting of his functional and core competencies, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the burden of proving such allegations – which, in reality, amounts to accusing his reporting and countersigning officers of bias – rests with the complainant, and mere suspicion is clearly insufficient (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 17, and 4010, consideration 9). In this case, the complainant has failed to provide any credible evidence showing that his functional and core competencies were evaluated on discriminatory or arbitrary grounds. His arguments regarding competency settings appear to be a disagreement with the weight given to certain incidents, rather than evidence of unfair treatment.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4637
  

  Keywords:

  bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4983

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2017.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant has not discharged his burden of proof in demonstrating that the reporting and the countersigning officers acted partially or lacked objectivity (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 17, 4543, consideration 8, 4382, consideration 11, and 3380, consideration 9). Contrary to his assertions, the overall marking he received means that his performance was evaluated as acceptable, with some areas of improvement. This rating was substantiated by the reporting and the countersigning officers based on the fact that the complainant did not completely achieve the planned productivity objectives. Furthermore, the complainant’s allegations of a hostile working environment and “constructive dismissal tactics” are unsubstantiated and thus unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4382, 4543, 4637
  

  Keywords:

  bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4978

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2012.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The Tribunal determines, as it did in consideration 12 of Judgment 4713 on that complaint (citing Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9) that the complainant, who bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that her allegations of bias or partiality are well founded, has not discharged that burden. Her pleas of bias and partiality repeated in this complaint are therefore unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543, 4713
  

  Keywords:

  bias; burden of proof; performance report; rating;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4971

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal recalls that bias, bad faith, and abuse of authority must be proven, and the complainant bears the burden of proof. Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their 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 (see Judgments 4745, consideration 12, 4608, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein; with regard to misuse of authority, see also Judgment 4427, consideration 12; with regard to bad faith, see also Judgment 3738, consideration 9). In the present case, the allegations concerning the IOD and the former Director General are merely speculative and, thus, unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3738, 4427, 4608, 4745
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4962

  
  139th Session, 2025
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her performance appraisal for 2019 and the subsequent decisions to “freeze” her step advancement and to place her on a performance improvement plan.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Le Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, la partialité ne se présume pas et que toute allégation de partialité doit reposer sur des éléments concrets de nature à la corroborer (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).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4408, 4451, 4543, 4713, 4891
  

  Keywords:

  bias;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4948

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him from duty with pay and with immediate effect.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  S’agissant du premier moyen du requérant, portant sur l’irrégularité de la procédure interne suivie par l’organisation, l’intéressé soutient que, contrairement à une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la Commission de recours aurait considéré des faits postérieurs à ceux dont les parties avaient connaissance au moment où la décision de suspension a été prise, que la procédure interne aurait été entachée de partialité et aurait été inéquitable et que la communication du rapport du Mécanisme à la Commission de recours aurait violé la confidentialité de ce document. […]
  Le Tribunal constate d’abord que, pour l’essentiel des extraits du rapport de la Commission de recours au sujet desquels le requérant lui fait le reproche d’avoir considéré des faits postérieurs à la décision de le suspendre, ceux-ci se trouvent dans la partie du rapport qui dresse un rappel des faits et de la procédure, et non dans la partie du rapport concernant l’analyse, les considérants et les recommandations. Il n’est par conséquent pas établi que la Commission aurait fondé son analyse sur des éléments postérieurs à la notification de la suspension ou que ces éléments auraient influencé ses conclusions.
  Les seuls paragraphes du rapport faisant partie de l’analyse et des considérants de la Commission de recours auxquels renvoie le requérant au soutien de cet argument touchent des faits qui, s’ils sont effectivement postérieurs, ont simplement été relevés par la Commission pour confirmer l’exactitude des faits qui étaient à la connaissance de l’organisation avant sa prise de décision quant à la suspension. Par exemple, les courriels envoyés par M. D. au Procureur postérieurement à la notification de la suspension ne fournissaient qu’une confirmation écrite des allégations portées verbalement à la connaissance du Procureur par ce dernier et ne sauraient constituer des faits postérieurs à la mesure contestée, dont la Commission ne devait pas tenir compte, au sens de la jurisprudence précitée du Tribunal sur la question.
  En ce qui concerne les références aux communications du requérant avec son supérieur immédiat, M. B., ou avec son collègue, M. D., postérieurement à la décision de suspension, elles ont simplement étayé les conclusions de la Commission selon lesquelles le requérant était bien au courant de la motivation à l’appui de cette décision et que son argument selon lequel il n’avait pas été dûment informé en temps utile des raisons de sa suspension n’était pas fondé.
  Quant au renvoi de la Commission à certains faits postérieurs à la décision de suspension pour répondre aux arguments du requérant sur la prétendue violation du devoir de sollicitude et de bonne foi, dès lors que les arguments du requérant à cet égard portaient sur des gestes posés ou des situations survenues après cette décision, ainsi que sur les conséquences vécues par ce dernier à la suite de celle-ci, force est de constater qu’il ne s’agit pas là de faits postérieurs au sens où l’entend la jurisprudence quant à l’analyse des motifs à l’appui de la décision de suspendre un fonctionnaire, mais de simples renvois à des faits pertinents à l’analyse de la violation potentielle de son devoir de sollicitude par l’organisation.
  Ensuite, une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal rappelle que la charge de la preuve à l’appui d’une allégation de partialité ou de traitement inéquitable dans le cadre de la procédure interne appartient au requérant (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4523, au considérant 8), et le Tribunal estime que les écritures n’appuient pas de façon convaincante cette assertion de l’intéressé.
  Enfin, le Tribunal observe que le requérant n’est pas fondé à soutenir que la communication du rapport du Mécanisme à la Commission de recours aurait violé la confidentialité de ce rapport. Il n’identifie en effet aucune disposition statutaire qui aurait été méconnue à cet égard, sachant qu’il avait lui-même commenté en détail le rapport du Mécanisme dans le cadre de la procédure interne devant cette Commission. En outre, cette communication ne portait aucunement atteinte à l’exigence d’impartialité de la Commission.
  Ce premier moyen est sans fondement et doit être écarté.

  Keywords:

  bias; confidentiality; subsequent fact;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  L’assertion du requérant selon laquelle le fait que l’organisation aurait préféré croire les propos d’un autre fonctionnaire (M. D.) plutôt que de lui reconnaître le bénéfice du doute au vu de son expérience de dix-huit ans au sein de la CPI demeure nettement insuffisante pour appuyer l’allégation de parti pris ou de partialité de l’organisation. Au moment de la prise de la décision de suspension, les allégations formulées pouvaient soulever de sérieuses préoccupations quant à la façon dont le requérant avait pu agir avec des parties prenantes extérieures à la Cour et quant à la compréhension par ce dernier des limites qui s’imposaient à ce qu’il pouvait divulguer aux représentants des États qui interagissaient avec la CPI. Selon une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, il est de plus acquis que, dans de tels cas, c’est au requérant qu’incombe la charge de prouver la teneur de ses allégations (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4612, au considérant 23, 4523, au considérant 8, et 4231, au considérant 10). […]
  Enfin, le sentiment profond d’injustice auquel le requérant renvoie, au motif principal que l’autre membre du personnel qui a participé à la discussion du 11 octobre 2021 (M. D.) n’ait pas été suspendu comme il l’a lui-même été, n’est pas fondé dans les circonstances de l’espèce. En effet, d’une part, il est clair que M. D. n’est pas celui à qui ont été attribués les propos pouvant soulever des questionnements quant aux violations potentielles des devoirs de confidentialité, de réserve ou de loyauté. […] Du reste, ainsi que l’a déjà rappelé le Tribunal, le principe d’égalité de traitement n’offre pas de protection en cas d’inconduite, ce qui trouve application dans une situation où il s’agit de l’imposition d’une mesure de suspension comme en l’espèce (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4359, au considérant 10).
  Ce troisième et dernier moyen est par conséquent sans fondement.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4231, 4359, 4523, 4612
  

  Keywords:

  bias; equal treatment; personal prejudice; suspension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4937

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she encumbered and to terminate her contract.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  Additionally, the complainant’s submission, which seems to suggest that, in abuse of authority, the subject decisions were influenced by the Chair-in-Office misapprehends the relationship between IOM and the Member States that funded the GFMD. Furthermore, the complainant’s submission that the subject decisions were arbitrarily made in unnecessary haste is not supported by the facts or the record. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, abuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see, for example, Judgments 4283, consideration 9, 4081, consideration 19, 3543, consideration 20, and 2116, consideration 4(a)). Moreover, bias, prejudice, and bad faith cannot be presumed, they must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgments 4841, consideration 4, and 4745, consideration 12). The complainant does not provide evidence (as against surmise and speculation) to discharge the burden she bears to prove that the decisions were taken out of malice; in bad faith or were motivated by bias against her on the part of the UAE’s Chair-in-Office. For the foregoing reasons, the third ground is unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3543, 4081, 4283, 4688, 4745, 4841
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >