|
|
 |
|
|
Conflict of interest (717,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Conflict of interest
Total judgments found: 47
1, 2, 3 | 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 11
Extract:
« Le simple fait que le chef exécutif d’une organisation soit l’auteur d’une décision administrative contestée par un fonctionnaire ne le place pas en situation de conflit d’intérêts pour statuer sur le recours formé contre cette décision (voir notamment, en ce sens, le jugement 5030, au considérant 2). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5030
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
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;
Judgment 5155
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to select her for the position of Head of the WHO Office in Dakar, Senegal.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal accepts the complainant’s statement that her allegations of harassment against the Regional Director and the Director for Programme Management serve the purpose of substantiating her claim that these staff members were affected by an apparent conflict of interest when acting in the context of the selection process and are therefore relevant for that purpose in the present complaint. The Tribunal accepts her further statement that she has not requested it to rule on the merits of her harassment complaint, but merely on the issue of conflict of interest in the context of the contested selection process which underlies this complaint. The Tribunal is satisfied that the complainant’s allegations of harassment and related matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision she contests in this complaint and are cast no wider. It is open to her to follow this course (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149
Keywords:
conflict of interest; harassment; plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Consideration 14
Extract:
“[…] ‘[I]t is a general rule of law that a person called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, he may consider himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice. Persons taking part in an advisory capacity in the proceedings of decision-making bodies are equally subject to the above-mentioned rule. It applies also to members of bodies required to make recommendations to decision-making bodies. Although they do not themselves make decisions, both these types of bodies may sometimes exert a crucial influence on the decision to be taken.’ […]. […] “[a] conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest.” […] It is however convenient to also recall that an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality must be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses, and that the complainant bears the burden of proof in this regard […].”
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
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 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;
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 4963
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant – whose post was abolished – challenges the decision to assign her to a new post while downgrading her by two grades, the decision to assign her temporarily to another post with retroactive effect, and the decision to reject her application to a competition procedure.
Consideration 15
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle une allégation de conflit d’intérêts doit être étayée et fondée sur des faits spécifiques, et non sur de simples soupçons ou hypothèses, et 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 4891, au considérant 11, 4617, au considérant 9, et 4616, au considérant 6). En l’espèce, le Tribunal considère que la requérante est restée concrètement en défaut d’apporter une telle preuve.
De même, le Tribunal n’aperçoit pas en quoi la constatation que fait la requérante, d’une part, qu’elle aurait été la seule candidate interne à voir sa candidature écartée dès le premier stade de la procédure de concours et, d’autre part, qu’elle serait, parmi les candidats internes, la seule femme à avoir vu sa candidature rejetée, à l’opposé de celles de ses trois collègues masculins, établirait en soi une volonté des membres du jury de sélection d’écarter sa candidature de manière délibérée.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616, 4617, 4891
Keywords:
conflict of interest; selection procedure;
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 13
Extract:
L’allégation relative à la situation de conflit d’intérêts dans laquelle se serait trouvé l’un des membres du Comité par rapport à M. H. doit être rejetée dès lors qu’elle ne repose sur aucun élément concret et dûment vérifiable. Conformément à la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal sur ce point, une allégation de conflit d’intérêts doit en effet être étayée et fondée sur des faits spécifiques, et non sur de simples soupçons ou hypothèses, et c’est au requérant qu’il incombe d’apporter la preuve d’un tel conflit (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4891, au considérant 11, 4617, au considérant 9, et 4616, au considérant 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616, 4617, 4891
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4915
139th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the BIPM’s decision to close his harassment complaint and to reject his requests for compensation.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
As to the contention that the CIPM President and the Director were both in a conflict of interest, the Tribunal recalls its precedents concerning conflicts of interest. The Tribunal’s case law states that it is a general rule of law that officials who are called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to their jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which their impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It further states that it is immaterial that, subjectively, the officials may consider themselves able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see, for example, Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 4234, consideration 3). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, 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 proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4711, consideration 5, 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6).
In light of the Tribunal’s case law, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest with regard to the CIPM President. Firstly, contrary to the complainant’s contention, there is no evidence in the file that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed any of the complainant’s claims. In his 24 February 2021 decision, the CIPM President only acknowledged that over the years he “was kept informed of the situation, and [he] had personal experience of how some of the issues were handled”. Secondly, in any event, even if it were to be assumed that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed some of the complainant’s claims, this mere fact does not prove that he had prejudice against the complainant when he decided the harassment complaint.
As to the Director’s alleged conflict of interest, the Tribunal considers that his impartiality was open to question on reasonable grounds. The complainant’s harassment complaint [...] accused the Director and four other officials of harassment. The complainant contended that he was the victim of an orchestrated harassment, and that not only did the Director harass him, he also tolerated the alleged hostile work environment, and, instead of seeking to manage the strained working relationships, he “let them develop and expand”. The Director was one of the five officials subject to the external investigation and was interviewed during the investigation process. In such a situation, the Director could not decide upon the harassment allegations lodged against himself. Nor could he decide on the harassment allegations lodged against the four other officials. Indeed, the complainant did not report separate and independent harassing behaviours by each of the accused officials individually, but, rather, an orchestrated harassment against him and accused the Director of tolerating that harassment against him. Thus, the allegations against the Director and the four other officials were interconnected and, in deciding the allegations against the four officials, the Director might have had an interest in denying the harassment in order to shield himself from the allegation of having tolerated it. The Director should have recused himself from the whole case and not only from deciding upon the allegations against himself, which is what he did in his 12 November 2020 email, by which he delegated to the CIPM President the authority to decide upon only the allegations against himself.
The mere fact that the Director decided to close the case against the other four officials only after the CIPM President had closed the case against the Director, did not eliminate the conflict of interest. On the one hand, the Director’s failure to delegate the decision-making authority on the whole case to the CIPM President was unlawful. On the other hand, the CIPM President’s decision on the allegations against the Director was a decision open to challenge. Thus, for as long as the CIPM President’s decision was open to challenge, the Director maintained an interest in deciding the allegations against the other four officials in a way which would not negatively affect his personal position with regard to the related harassment allegations brought against him.
In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that the Director had a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw from the case completely. This alone casts doubt on the Director’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the Director would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. In brief, since the complainant reported an orchestrated harassment against him, the case should not have been split into two separate decisions; it should have been decided as one case in a single decision by the CIPM President. Accordingly, the decisions adopted by the Director […] are unlawful as they are tainted with a conflict of interest. […]
The Tribunal’s finding on the Director’s conflict of interest constitutes a decisive and fatal flaw in the impugned decision […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4234, 4240, 4616, 4617, 4711
Keywords:
conflict of interest; decision; decision-maker; recusal; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that Rule 18.5.3 of the BIPM Staff Manual, entitled “Incompatibilities of Appeals Committee members”, provides that:
“The Appeals Committee shall not include any member involved in the process leading up to the case, in relation with his functions or a mediation procedure. This member is hence replaced by his substitute.”
The Tribunal notes that, in principle, persons who played a role as parties, decision-making authorities, or witnesses in administrative proceedings should not act as members of the internal appeal body in ensuing internal appeal proceedings. In the context of the BIPM, failure to respect this would amount to “incompatibility” within the meaning of Rule 18.5.3, and would, in any event, be inconsistent with the Tribunal’s case law concerning due process and the impartiality of an internal appeal body. Relevantly, in Judgment 3732, consideration 3, the Tribunal held that the member, whose participation in the internal appeal body was contested in that case, could not be a member of the internal appeal body assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the internal appeal body had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. In those circumstance, the contested member’s impartiality might be open to question as there were reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgments 2671, consideration 10, and 2225, consideration 19). The fact that the decision of an appeal body is reached unanimously does not eliminate the flaw in the process due to the participation in the decision-making of a member who should have recused themselves. Indeed, the participation in an appeal body of a member having a conflict of interest may influence the decision-making of the other members (see Judgment 4772, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Appeals Committee member […] who was heard as a witness in the investigation process, and in this capacity referred to specific episodes involving the complainant and the Director, should not have participated in the appeal proceedings as a member of the Appeals Committee, irrespective of the fact that the Appeals Committee adopted its opinion unanimously.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671, 3732, 4772
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; impartiality; member of an internal body; recusal; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for material and moral damages may only be allowed, if the complainant prevails on his substantive pleas. Inasmuch as the present complaint succeeds on procedural grounds and the case will be remitted to the BIPM, his claim for material and moral damages remains in abeyance. At this stage, the complainant is entitled to moral damages only for the breach of due process stemming from the conflict of interest. The Tribunal deems it just and fair to award him 15,000 euros in moral damages in this respect.
Keywords:
breach; case sent back to organisation; conflict of interest; due process; material damages; moral damages;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; decision-maker; harassment; recusal;
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 11
Extract:
On conflict of interest, in Judgment 4711, consideration 5, the Tribunal recalled as follows its case law on this issue:
“[...] it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 3958, consideration 11). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, 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 proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6) [...]”
On the one hand, the Tribunal considers that the situation to which the complainant pointed does not give rise to an objective partiality. On the other hand, as an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality must be substantiated and based on specific facts, raising it, as the complainant does, based on mere suspicion or hypothesis, is clearly insufficient.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4616, 4617, 4711
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conflict of interest; disciplinary measure; misconduct; organisation's interest; outside activity; political activity; proportionality; staff member's duties;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he FAO/WFP’s regulatory framework prohibits a staff member from engaging in any political activities or being a candidate for a public office of a political character. WFP Human Resources (HR) Manual Section I.2.2.3 relevantly states that staff members wishing to submit their candidacy for a public office, provided that it is not political in nature, must obtain prior authorization from the Executive Director. This section however refers to Staff Regulation 301.1.7, which states that any staff member who becomes a candidate for public office of a political character, while still employed with the WFP, shall resign from the Organization. This makes it obvious that a staff member’s participation in such political activity is inimical to the interest of the WFP and is strictly forbidden. Notably, the Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 1061, consideration 5, that the reason for the provision in Staff Regulation 301.1.7 is that an international civil servant, though entitled to hold his own political views, must stand aloof from demonstrations of adherence to a political party and that integrity, loyalty to the international civil service, independence and impartiality are the standards required of an international civil servant and they require him or her to keep clear of involvement in national party politics.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1061
Keywords:
conflict of interest; international civil service principles; organisation's interest; outside activity; political activity; rules of the organisation; staff member's duties;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[The complainant] refers to the case law […] in consideration 10 of Judgment 4240, that “it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw from cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds”. The complainant further refers to consideration 11 of Judgment 3958, which additionally states that it is immaterial that, subjectively, a person may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice and that persons taking part in an advisory capacity in the proceedings of decision-making bodies are equally subject to the abovementioned rule, which also applies to members of bodies required to make recommendations to decision-making bodies who may sometimes exert a crucial influence on the decision to be taken. The Tribunal also therein stated that a conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality and that even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest. In consideration 3 of Judgment 4679, the Tribunal also recalled its case law 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 and that the complainant bears the burden to prove a conflict of interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4679
Keywords:
conflict of interest;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation of bias, conflict of interest and breach of impartiality on the part of the investigator, as the Appeals Commission in effect found, the allegation could not be proved on the mere basis that the same investigator had already concluded in his initial investigative report that he (the complainant) was culpable for sexual harassment. As the case law states, such allegation must be substantiated and based on specific facts (see, for example, Judgment 4711, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4711
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest; impartiality; investigation;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[The complainant] submits that the Commission was improperly constituted and that its members had a conflict of interest so that they were biased and not impartial. This, he states, is because the members of the panel had already expressed a concluded view in their initial report that he was culpable of the allegation of harassment […] He cites the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 12 of Judgment 2671, that “a reasonable person knowing that a member of [an internal Appeal’s body] had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved [and that] failing an explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their view on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality” […] The Tribunal notes that […] the members of the Commission did not express a prior view on the issue whether the complainant had [engaged in sexual harassment] to lead to a conclusion that they did not embark upon considering the internal appeal in the reopened investigation with open minds thereby casting doubt on their impartiality and precluding them from considering the latter internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2671
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; harassment; impartiality; internal appeals body; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4772
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint another candidate to the position of Director, Investment Centre Division following a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; selection board;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he fact that Mr G. participated with others in the selection process does not excuse his participation if there was a possibility, as plainly there was, particularly given his role as chair of the panel, for him influencing the decision-making of others. Additionally, the Director-General appears to have been suggesting that it was incumbent upon the complainant to “show prejudice, discrimination, lack of integrity or partiality on the part of [Mr G.]”. The conclusion of the Committee was based on the fact, as in the circumstances it could be, that a complaint of harassment against Mr G. had been lodged and was being processed and the [Organization] does not deny that Mr G. was aware of this. It was wrong of the Director-General to call in aid the fact that the [Office of the Inspector-General] had subsequently “found no credible case of harassment”. That is so for one and possibly two reasons. The outcome of the [Office of the Inspector-General]’s consideration of the grievance was not known at the time of Mr G.’s participation in the selection process. Thus, the assessment of a “reasonable person” that would not exclude partiality is to be based on known facts at the time, namely the time of the interviews. Moreover, the conclusion of the [Office of the Inspector-General] manifest in a Notice of Closure of 27 October 2017 was reached unlawfully as discussed in Judgment 4691.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4691
Keywords:
conflict of interest; selection board;
Judgment 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal first recalls its case law stating it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 3958, consideration 11). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, 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 proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4616, 4617
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4699
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.
Considerations 5 & 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal fails to see how the fact that the doctor was appointed by the insurance company on the basis of a list previously approved by Eurocontrol should create a conflict of interest, since, if the Organisation were to appoint the doctor itself, the same issue would still arise given that it would then be its own financial interests that would be directly at stake.
[...]
The assertion that the Sickness Fund Supervisor was subject to a conflict of interests simply through being the “manager” of the fund is based on a mere premise, devoid of any prima facie evidence, and there is nothing in the documents submitted by the parties to suggest that such was the case here. Furthermore, if such an assertion were to be followed, it would lead to the conclusion that it was not permissible for any international organisation to create a sickness and invalidity insurance fund for the benefit of its officials, or, at the very least, that an organisation had to appoint a third party body to manage any fund it created, which is untenable.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; health insurance;
Judgment 4683
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her non-selection to a post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
It is worth noting that the Tribunal stated, in Judgment 1732, consideration 9, that: “[w]here there is a rational and legitimate explanation for a decision, [...] the Tribunal should not be overzealous to infer bad faith or improper motive simply because the individuals concerned do not enjoy good personal relations”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1732
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As to the argument that the persons entrusted with the investigation are in a conflict of interest because they are subject to the hierarchical authority of the person accused of harassment (i.e. the Director-General), the Tribunal recalls its case law which states it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgment 4240, consideration 10). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). 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 to prove a conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6). The mere fact that the staff members entrusted with an investigation are ordinarily under the authority of the Director- General is not a reasonable ground to call their impartiality into question. In the present case, there is no evidence that they had received any instructions from the Director-General (see Judgment 4243, consideration 9). The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence about the existence of a conflict of interest, which is merely hypothetical and not grounded on specific facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4243, 4616, 4617
Keywords:
conflict of interest; investigation; investigative body;
Judgment 4617
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of harassment dated 6 December 2019 or, otherwise, the implicit confirmation, on 29 January 2020, of the decision to reject her 6 December 2019 claim.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of proof of bias and conflict of interest (see Judgments 4099, consideration 11, and 3380, considerations 9 and 10), and she fails to discharge it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4099
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
Judgment 4616
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision finding that she had harassed another staff member and imposing a written reprimand on her.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of proof of bias and conflict of interest (see Judgments 4099, consideration 11, and 3380, considerations 9 and 10), and she fails to discharge it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4099
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
