|
|
 |
|
|
Recusal (82, 973,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Recusal
Total judgments found: 23
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5174
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recusal of the chairperson of the Appeals Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; step in the procedure;
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The contention that the allegations against the Director should have been decided by the CIPM as a whole, rather than by its President, is unfounded. The CIPM is the Director’s appointing authority, and, pursuant to the relevant rules, it is competent to terminate the Director’s appointment, to initiate a disciplinary action against the Director, and to take the decisions related to the conditions of employment of the Director. The relevant rules do not expressly address the issue at stake in the present proceedings, but the structure of the rules as a whole makes it sufficiently clear that they intend to confine the CIPM’s competence to the main decisions directly involving the Director, that is to say the appointment, the termination of the appointment, the conditions of employment, and does not include harassment proceedings lodged by other staff members and involving the Director, unless the decision to be taken is a disciplinary sanction against the Director. In the present case, the process in question was not a disciplinary process against the Director, but a process prompted by a harassment complaint. The competent authority was, in principle, the Director, and, as the Director could not decide upon a harassment complaint lodged against himself, he was lawfully replaced by the CIPM President and not by the CIPM as a whole.
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; harassment; recusal; rules of the organisation;
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;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; decision-maker; harassment; recusal;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] rightly contends that her appeal to the Joint Committee was not considered, at least in appearance, in compliance with the essential requirements as to impartiality.
First, the written evidence shows that a member of that Committee – who, according to the complainant’s undisputed assertion, was the spouse of the only other candidate participating in the contested competition, and whose disqualification the complainant had requested for that very reason – took part in hearing the case in question. The Tribunal considers that this member faced, in the circumstances of the case, a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw. The practical difficulties put forward by the organisation to justify the fact that he did not do so cannot be accepted, particularly as the member in question had an alternate.
Second, the Joint Committee had, as already stated, asked the head of the Legal Department to provide it with an opinion in connection with its examination of the complainant’s appeal. However, as a member of the Committee pointed out in a dissenting opinion, that request breached the principle of impartiality since, in particular, that official was herself involved in managing competitions and, above all, she had at the same time been appointed to represent the Executive Director before the Joint Committee in that case.
Keywords:
impartiality; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The first argument advanced by the complainant in relation to the decision to suspend him from duty is that the Deputy Secretary-General had no authority to take such a decision but, rather, as the Secretary-General was an interested party, the question of suspension should have been referred to the ITU Council [...]. It is correct that it was incumbent on the Secretary-General to refrain from taking any decision concerning the incidents that occurred in his office [...]. As stated in Judgment 179, "his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds". Although Staff Rule 10.1.3 refers only to suspension by the Secretary-General, the doctrine of necessity allows that, where there is a conflict of interest, authority is to be granted to some other appropriate person. However, that does not mean that the question should have been referred to the Council. That body has certain powers with respect to elected officials, but not with respect to unelected officials. As an elected official and as the next most senior official, the Deputy Secretary-General was the appropriate person to exercise authority with respect to the incidents that occurred [...], even if the relevant provision did not so provide."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; competence; decision; executive body; no provision; recusal;
Judgment 2671
104th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A reasonable person, knowing that a member of the Appeals Committee 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. So much was decided in Judgment 179 in which it was said that 'failing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality'. [...] It follows that those persons who had been members of the first Appeals Committee were disqualified from membership of the second Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 1190
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Under WHO Staff Rule 1230.4 an official who has appealed to the Appeals Board is entitled to challenge two of its members. One of the complainants exercised that right but had his challenge rejected. There was therefore a serious flaw in the internal appeal procedure. The material issue is whether the Director-General was entitled to treat the Board's report as being in line with the material rules. The report itself discloses that the rights of one of the complainants had been ignored. The Tribunal holds that "the Director-General has a duty to enforce the rules. He knew of the breach and should have rejected the report insofar as it concerned [the complainant] who objected to it as not being in accordance with those rules: he was not entitled to proceed as if no breach had occurred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1230.4
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; due process; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; recusal; report; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1124
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Chairman of the Committee with a mandate to consider the complainant's request for review of the decision setting the amount of his termination indemnity resigned because he regarded other duties he held as incompatible with the chairmanship. "There was [...] nothing improper about that. Indeed, the Chairman's resignation removed a threat to the Committee's impartiality". It was, moreover, in line with Clause 3 of Article 146 of the Staff Rules.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 146(3) OF THE INTERPOL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; enforcement; internal appeals body; recusal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1065
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5, Summary
Extract:
The complainant objects to the members of the Tribunal and to the members of the EPO Appeals Committee. "His attitude and language are [...] inadmissible. As in Judgments 933, 934 and 935 the Tribunal again deplores his offensive manner of putting his case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 933, 934, 935
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeals body; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 1004
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant's candidature in an internal competition having been eliminated, he challenged the composition of the Selection Board. He had doubts that its Vice-chairman, who had retired and later gone back to the organisation, might not have been reappointed to the Board as required under the material rules. The Tribunal observes that the guidelines issued to implement the provisions of Circular 380 (Series 6) of 3 March 1987 expressly stipulate that officials who have been reappointed will be considered to have had no break in service for the purposes of service on the Selection Board. The argument fails.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 380 (SERIES 6) OF 3 MARCH 1987
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; condition; recusal; selection board;
Judgment 935
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant questions the impartiality of the President of the Tribunal on the grounds that the President allowed the EPO's application for permission to confine its reply to the issue of receivability. The President took that decision by virtue of his general authority to direct proceedings. Even when the President has granted permission to reply only on receivability the Tribunal may still declare a complaint receivable and order further pleadings on the merits, as indeed it did in Judgment 852."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 852
Keywords:
bias; competence of tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; recusal; reply confined to receivability; tribunal;
Judgment 934
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] deplores the complainant's manner of pleading. [...] His rejoinder contains accusations and remarks that are offensive to everyone concerned, including members of the Tribunal when they do not agree with him."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 933
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal deplores the complainant's manner of pleading. [...] His rejoinder contains accusations and remarks that are offensive to everyone concerned, including members of the Tribunal when they do not agree with him."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 667
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant advances the argument "that the internal appeal procedure could not now function properly since every member of the Appeals Committee [...] would himself have an interest in the outcome of the appeal. [The argument fails.] The objection to the membership of the [...] Committee cannot be entertained in hearing the present complaint. In any event the Committee would be competent to consider allegations of flaws in the individual decision."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 536
49th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"One of [the complainant's] arguments is that the Tribunal was not correctly constituted when it delivered Judgment No. 404" and that because of various other defects the judgment is null and void. "This is a plea she might have put forward in the written proceedings in her fourth complaint, which culminated in Judgment No. 442. It is therefore not admissible."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442
Keywords:
application for review; composition of the internal appeals body; inadmissible grounds for review; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 303
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
One of the complainants contends that the Careers Committee for promotions included the chief of the personnel service, the official who had determined his performance mark, and that the Committee's composition was therefore irregular. "But the fact that the chief of the personnel service should sit on such a committee is only normal. That official had a duty of impartiality both in marking the complainant's performance and in serving on the Careers Committee, and the two functions were therefore quite compatible."
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; promotion board; recusal; supervisor;
Judgment 232
32nd Session, 1974
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The fact that [the official in question] was a member of the Appeals Board although as chief of personnel he had previously appointed the complainant to [two posts] cannot taint the composition of the Board with irregularity nor afford grounds for debarring that senior official."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 179
27th Session, 1971
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Because of its purpose, which is to protect the individual against arbitrary action, [the rule on withdrawal] applies in international organisations even in [the absence] of any specific text."
Keywords:
bias; enforcement; no provision; recusal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The mere fact that one member of the Advisory Board was the son-in-law of the wife of a staff member serving in the same division as the complainant at a higher grade is not sufficient to constitute a ground for withdrawal. There is no direct relationship either by blood or by marriage between the member and the official concerned, and the latter [...] cannot [...] be regarded as his supervisor in the proper sense of the term." He was not required to withdraw.
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; condition; family relationship; internal appeals body; recusal;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[F]ailing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the officials [who may take or influence the decision] are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality or if for other reasons they may be open to suspicion of partiality."
Keywords:
bias; condition; recusal;
Judgment 110
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Neither the fact that two of the judges that sat in the case [...] disposed of by Judgment No. 70 have been called upon to hear a further case brought by the same complainant, nor the fact that one of these judges is of Swiss nationality and sits on the Supreme Court of his own country, can in itself be regarded as valid grounds for objection to these judges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 70
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; grounds; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 107
17th Session, 1967
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(C)
Extract:
"When making their decision the three experts were not aware of the names of the respective candidates, the papers having been placed in plain envelopes marked only with a letter of the alphabet. This ensured the impartiality of the experts. While it is true that complainant's chief, who was allegedly prejudiced against him, was a member of the Board of Experts, he expressed views which, although independent of those of his colleagues, did not differ from them. Consequently his presence cannot be said to have brought personal influence to bear on the results of the competition [...]. There is no reason to question the impartiality with which the results were evaluated."
Keywords:
bias; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; selection board;
Judgment 105
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 110, consideration 1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 110
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; grounds; recusal; tribunal;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
