|
|
 |
|
|
Personal prejudice (709,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Personal prejudice
Total judgments found: 26
1, 2 | 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 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 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 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 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;
Judgment 4849
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to convert his fixed-term appointment into a continuing or permanent appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Fundamental to the first contention is the fact that the decision, as explained by the complainant in his pleas, “was based on the personal prejudice which perniciously lay hidden behind the unlawful initiation of the unlawful investigation process against [him]”. This is a reference to the investigation leading to the laying of charges of misconduct against the complainant on 14 December 2016. This is tantamount to a claim of bad faith which must be proven and cannot be presumed (see, for example, Judgment 4753, consideration 13). But beyond generalised assertions, the complainant provides no persuasive evidence which directly, or inferentially, establishes personal prejudice of the type relied on.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; evidence; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Bad faith and prejudice must be proven, and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see, for example, Judgments 4745, consideration 12, 4478, consideration 13, 4347, consideration 29, and 3927, consideration 12). 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 4745, consideration 12). The fact that the impugned decision contains ambiguous wording does not prove, by itself, that the decision was tainted with bad faith and prejudice against the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927, 4347, 4478, 4745
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4745
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Consideration 12
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, complainants bear the burden of proof with regard to allegations of bias (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 9). 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 Judgment 4608, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4608
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] alleges that there was a conflict of interest affecting one of the members of the Selection Board, as that member was the supervisor of one candidate.
The Tribunal recalls that a lack of impartiality, a bias or a conflict of interest on the part of members of a collegiate body such as a selection board may not be presumed. Any allegation of such matters must therefore be supported by tangible evidence (see, inter alia, Judgments 4451, consideration 16, 4408, consideration 22, and 3438, consideration 8). The mere fact, relied on in the present case, that the supervisor of one candidate was a member of the Selection Board cannot, in itself, be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest. In addition, since the complainant merely makes generalised assertions without adducing any tangible or specific evidence to establish the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of the member of the Selection Board in question, those assertions must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3438, 4408, 4451
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; personal prejudice; selection board;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 16
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, however, allegations of bias can only be upheld if they are supported by evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 22, 4099, consideration 11, 3914, consideration 7, 3380, consideration 9, or 1775, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3380, 3914, 4099, 4408
Keywords:
personal prejudice;
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 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 4505
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has pointed out many times 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 his allegation he must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see Judgment 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, 4345, 4451
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4502
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends that the Organization was biased against her. However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the burden of proving bias rests with the complainant (see Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 3914, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3914
Keywords:
burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 22
Extract:
With regard to the alleged favourable bias shown by the supervisor towards the successful candidate, the Tribunal recalls its case law, illustrated in particular by Judgment 3914, consideration 7, according to which it is for the complainant to prove discrimination or bias. In this case, the complainant has confined herself to mere allegations, without providing any tangible evidence in corroboration.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3914
Keywords:
personal prejudice;
Judgment 4281
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that he was deprived of an opportunity to be promoted for the sole reason that he exercised a part-time staff union mandate. The grievance he thereby expresses should, in the Tribunal’s view, be regarded as an allegation of misuse of authority.
In Judgment 3357, under 16, the Tribunal found that “the existence of [...] bias, which would constitute a misuse of authority, may not be presumed. It is incumbent upon the official who intends to rely on a plea of this nature to furnish at least some prima facie evidence in support thereof; mere allegations which are moreover purely speculative are immaterial here (see, for example, Judgments 1775, under 7, 2019, under 24, 2927, under 16, or 3182, under 9)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 2019, 2927, 3182, 3357
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; personal prejudice; staff union activity;
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 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 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;
Judgment 3753
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
WHO argues in its reply, correctly, that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of personal prejudice though it acknowledges, again correctly, that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and may rest on inferences drawn from all the circumstances (see Judgments 958, consideration 5, 1775, consideration 7, and 3380, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 958, 1775, 3380
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
