Manifest error (841,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Manifest error
Total judgments found: 22

1, 2 | next >

• Judgment 5185

  
  141st Session, 2026
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a Board of Appeal member, challenges his transposition to a new grade with effect from 1 July 2015 as a result of the introduction of a new career system.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [I]l convient de rappeler que la jurisprudence du Tribunal reconnaît aux organisations internationales un large pouvoir d’appréciation quant à la détermination des structures salariales ou des modalités de déroulement des carrières, qui relève de la politique générale de gestion du personnel que celles-ci ont la liberté de conduire conformément à leurs intérêts (voir, par exemple, les jugements 5072, au considérant 9, 4889, au considérant 9, 4274, au considérant 15, ou 3275, au considérant 8). Les décisions prises par une organisation dans ce domaine ne sauraient donc être censurées qu’en cas d’erreur manifeste caractérisant un abus de ce pouvoir d’appréciation.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3275, 4274, 4889, 5072
  

  Keywords:

  change of rules; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5123

  
  141st Session, 2026
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

  Consideration 24

  Extract:

  « [L]e Tribunal estime que la grossièreté de certains vices affectant la décision attaquée […] a, quant à elle, été de nature à causer au requérant un préjudice moral appelant réparation. En effet, la négligence administrative qui a conduit à ce que la Directrice générale rejette le recours dirigé contre la nouvelle description d’emploi sans que le Conseil d’appel n’ait encore rendu son avis sur celui-ci, ainsi que l’insuffisance manifeste de la motivation de la décision attaquée, témoignent d’un manque de considération à l’égard de l’intéressé que ce dernier pouvait légitimement percevoir comme attentatoire à sa dignité. La circonstance que le droit de recours du requérant ait été finalement sauvegardé par la consultation ultérieure du Conseil d’appel ayant donné lieu à [un] avis […] ne suffit pas à faire disparaître ce préjudice. »

  Keywords:

  manifest error; moral injury; motivation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5122

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [C]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 4343, consideration 4, 4106, consideration 12, and 3872, consideration 2). The case law also states, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, that the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4749, consideration 5, 4227, consideration 6, and 3862, consideration 20).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862, 3872, 4106, 4227, 4343, 4749
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; limits; manifest error; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
  

  Consideration 24

  Extract:

  The violation of the complainant’s due process in the disciplinary process was a manifest error, which permits the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision, as well as the initial decision contained in the letter of 7 February 2020, without it being necessary to rule on any other plea the complainant proffers. Inasmuch as the complainant’s rights to due process were violated, he is entitled to moral damages. For this, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will award him 20,000 euros.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; due process; judicial review; manifest error; moral damages; patere legem; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Considerations 29-30

  Extract:

  “An internal appeal body has a duty to address pleas of substance […]. Yet, the Appeal Board report shows that while it apparently identified what it considered as being potential issues on the question of the alleged conflict of interest, it did not resolve these issues as part of its remarks. Similarly, regarding the evidence and the burden of proof, the Appeal Board noted the applicable standard of preponderance of evidence […] and the beyond reasonable doubt standard applied by the Disciplinary Chamber, and even expressed having some doubts on the evidence from both sides. Still, it refrained from explaining what to conclude from these different standards and what these doubts were and amounted to, or from resolving any discrepancies that may have existed in its mind.
  [A]n appeal board [is] wrong to consider that it was not competent to ascertain, in its opinion, whether an internal investigative body had correctly assessed the probative value of the documents and information provided by a complainant in support of an internal complaint, and that this error of law had the effect of denying the complainant his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly considered. The same applies in the present situation.”

  Keywords:

  evidence; internal appeals body; investigation; manifest error; plea; right of appeal;
  

  
  
  

• 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 6

  Extract:

  “It appears that, in the minds of the drafters of the JAAB’s recommendation, the consideration that “the JAAB has no mandate to investigate the recommendations of the JADB” was based on the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body, and the findings of such a body are entitled to considerable deference by it, unless they have been improperly established or reveal a manifest error […]. However, this case law concerns the role of the Tribunal itself, not that of an appeal body […]. This case law is explained, inter alia, by the fact that it is not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body and by the idea that it is not best placed to assess the reliability of the statements of persons who may be heard in the course of an investigation. More generally, it refers to the particular features and limits of the Tribunal’s judicial role. However, these specificities do not apply to appeal bodies and, as the Tribunal has held on several occasions, such a body is wrong, when, in defining its own role, it refers to restrictions that apply in certain cases to the judicial review of administrative decisions […]. While the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them is, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made […].The power of internal appeal bodies extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is where the rules governing the appeal body provide for such restrictions […]. The internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition, their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation, and the broad investigative powers granted to them. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, they gather the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof […].
  Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case not only did the JAAB refuse to further investigate the case, it also refused to conduct a legal analysis of the proceedings before the JADB, in order to assess whether it complied with the applicable staff rules and regulations and whether the procedural flaws in the process alleged by the complainant had occurred.
  It should be emphasized that this error of law, which resulted in the JAAB’s refusal to fully review the disciplinary decision, had the effect of denying the complainant his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly considered by that body. As a result, the complainant was not granted a fair and effective internal remedy.”

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; harassment; internal appeals body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5051

  
  140th Session, 2025
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de classer ses plaintes pour harcèlement à l’issue des procédures d’évaluation préliminaire de celles-ci.

  Considerations 2-4

  Extract:

  Il ressort […] de l’avis du Conseil d’appel […] que cet organe, estimant implicitement devoir suivre l’argumentation en ce sens présentée devant lui par l’UNESCO, a considéré, pour l’essentiel, qu’il ne lui appartenait pas de se prononcer sur le bien-fondé des décisions de classement contestées, mais seulement de vérifier si ces dernières avaient été prises dans le respect des règles relatives au traitement des plaintes pour harcèlement résultant des textes en vigueur au sein de l’Organisation et de la jurisprudence du Tribunal. Cet avis ne comporte, par suite, au-delà de quelques considérations générales soulignant que les conflits professionnels ne sont pas forcément constitutifs de harcèlement et que les mesures critiquées par le requérant n’étaient pas de nature disciplinaire, aucune appréciation sur la pertinence des conclusions adoptées par la Conseillère pour l’éthique au sujet des faits précis exposés par l’intéressé à l’appui de ses plaintes.
  Or, en s’abstenant ainsi presque totalement de contrôler quant au fond les décisions de classement litigieuses, le Conseil d’appel a commis une erreur de droit. En effet, il appartient en principe à un organe de recours de vérifier aussi bien la régularité que le bien-fondé des décisions administratives qui lui sont soumises et aucune règle ne faisait obstacle, en l’occurrence, à ce que ce pouvoir soit exercé dans sa plénitude.
  Il est vrai que, selon une jurisprudence bien établie à laquelle s’est référé le Conseil d’appel dans son avis, il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de réévaluer les preuves analysées par un organe d’enquête et les conclusions d’un tel organe méritent, sauf à ce qu’elles aient été irrégulièrement établies ou révèlent une erreur manifeste, la plus grande considération de sa part (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4703, au considérant 8, 4291, au considérant 12, 4091, au considérant 17, ou 3593, au considérant 12). Mais cette jurisprudence – qui ne saurait au demeurant s’interpréter comme excluant tout contrôle juridictionnel du bien-fondé des décisions statuant sur des plaintes pour harcèlement – concerne le rôle du Tribunal lui-même, et non celui d’un organe de recours tel que le Conseil d’appel.
  S’expliquant notamment par le fait que le Tribunal n’a pas vocation à procéder à des investigations analogues à celles d’un organe d’enquête et par l’idée suivant laquelle il n’est pas le mieux placé pour évaluer la fiabilité des déclarations des personnes éventuellement entendues par celui-ci, la jurisprudence en question renvoie, plus généralement, aux particularités et limites de la mission juridictionnelle dévolue au Tribunal. Or, ces spécificités ne valent pas pour les organes de recours et, comme le Tribunal a eu maintes fois l’occasion de l’affirmer, un tel organe se méprend lorsque, pour définir son propre rôle, il se réfère aux restrictions qui s’appliquent, dans certaines hypothèses, au contrôle juridictionnel des décisions administratives (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4923, au considérant 5, 3161, au considérant 5, ou 3077, au considérant 3). En effet, si le Tribunal a pour seule mission de vérifier la légalité de ces décisions et se prononce, en principe, exclusivement en droit, il appartient aux organes de recours, qui sont pour leur part investis d’un pouvoir de contrôle s’étendant au réexamen complet de celles-ci, de déterminer si la décision qui leur est soumise était, à leurs yeux, celle qu’il convenait effectivement de prendre ou si, au vu du dossier, il aurait fallu en prendre une autre (voir, par exemple, les jugements 5003, au considérant 5, 3161, au considérant 6, ou 3032, au considérant 10). Il n’en va différemment que si les règles régissant l’organe de recours restreignent ce pouvoir (voir notamment les jugements 3318, au considérant 5, et 3077, au considérant 3), ce qui n’est pas le cas du Conseil d’appel de l’UNESCO en matière de décisions relatives à l’examen de plaintes pour harcèlement.
  Dès lors, c’est à tort que le Conseil d’appel a estimé devoir quasi exclusivement limiter le contrôle exercé sur les décisions de classement dont il était saisi à la vérification de leur régularité au regard des règles de procédure applicables. Au-delà de cette erreur de droit en elle-même, le fait que le Conseil se soit en conséquence dispensé de traiter, dans le corps de son avis, des allégations précises sur lesquelles reposaient les plaintes du requérant confère à la motivation de cet avis un caractère lacunaire, ce qui constitue un autre vice entachant ce dernier. En outre, il y a lieu de souligner que l’absence de contrôle concret par cet organe de la pertinence du classement des plaintes en cause a eu pour effet de priver l’intéressé de son droit à voir le bien-fondé de ses recours internes dûment examiné par celui-ci.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 3077, 3161, 3318, 3593, 4091, 4291, 4703, 4923, 5003
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4923

  
  139th Session, 2025
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his internal complaint of untrue statements

  Considerations 4-6

  Extract:

  [E]n estimant […] qu’il ne relevait pas de sa mission consultative de vérifier le bien-fondé de l’appréciation des éléments de preuve à laquelle s’était livré [le Service d’évaluation et d’audit], le Conseil a commis une erreur de droit.
  Il semble que cette considération ait reposé, dans l’esprit des auteurs de l’avis, sur la jurisprudence bien établie du Tribunal selon laquelle il ne lui appartient pas de réévaluer les preuves analysées par un organe d’enquête et les conclusions d’un tel organe méritent, sauf à ce qu’elles aient été irrégulièrement établies ou révèlent une erreur manifeste, la plus grande déférence de sa part (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4703, au considérant 8, 4291, au considérant 12, 4091, au considérant 17, ou 3593, au considérant 12). Mais cette jurisprudence concerne le rôle du Tribunal lui-même, et non celui d’un organe de recours tel que le Conseil d’appel.
  S’expliquant notamment par le fait que le Tribunal n’a pas vocation à procéder à des investigations analogues à celles d’un organe d’enquête et par l’idée suivant laquelle il n’est pas le mieux placé pour évaluer la fiabilité des déclarations des personnes éventuellement entendues dans le cadre d’une enquête, la jurisprudence en question renvoie, plus généralement, aux particularités et limites de la mission juridictionnelle dévolue au Tribunal. Or, ces spécificités ne valent pas pour les organes de recours et, comme le Tribunal a eu maintes fois l’occasion de l’affirmer, un tel organe se méprend lorsque, pour définir son propre rôle, il se réfère aux restrictions qui s’appliquent, dans certaines hypothèses, au contrôle juridictionnel des décisions administratives (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3161, au considérant 5, ou 3077, au considérant 3). En effet, si le Tribunal a pour seule mission de vérifier la légalité de ces décisions et se prononce, en principe, exclusivement en droit, il appartient aux organes de recours, qui sont pour leur part investis d’un pouvoir de contrôle s’étendant au réexamen complet de celles-ci, de déterminer si la décision qui leur est soumise était, à leurs yeux, celle qu’il convenait effectivement de prendre ou si, au vu du dossier, il aurait fallu en prendre une autre (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3161, au considérant 6, ou 3032, au considérant 10). Il n’en va différemment que si les règles régissant l’organe de recours restreignent ce pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3318, au considérant 5, ou 3077, au considérant 3), ce qui n’est pas le cas du Conseil d’appel de l’UNESCO dans le domaine considéré.
  Dès lors, c’est à tort que le Conseil d’appel a estimé qu’il n’avait pas compétence pour examiner, dans le cadre de son avis, si le directeur de l’IOS avait correctement apprécié la valeur probante des documents et éléments d’information fournis par le requérant à l’appui de sa plainte. En outre, il y a lieu de souligner que l’erreur de droit ainsi commise, qui a conduit le Conseil à refuser de vérifier pleinement la pertinence du classement de la plainte litigieuse, a eu pour effet de priver l’intéressé de son droit à voir le bien-fondé de son recours interne dûment examiné par cet organe.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 3077, 3161, 3318, 3593, 4091, 4291, 4703
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; evidence; internal appeals body; investigation; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  Consistent precedent also has it that where there is an investigation by an investigative body prior to disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 4106, consideration 6, and 3593, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 4106
  

  Keywords:

  evidence; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4848

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no manifest error in the Appeal Board’s finding and conclusion that there was a material difference between the duties and responsibilities of the newly created position (Director of CMD) and those of the original position (Director of CID) as a result of the redefined organizational context, warranting advertising for the post of Director of CMD. Therefore, the Director General’s decision to extend the complainant’s contract by three months only in the soon to be abolished position of Director of CID was taken in proper exercise of his discretion.

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; manifest error; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4820

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has consistently held that the question as to whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of (see, in particular, Judgment 4471, consideration 18) and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see, for example, Judgments 4344, consideration 3, 3871, consideration 12, and 3692, consideration 18). When a specific procedure is prescribed by the organisation concerned, it must be followed and the rules must be applied correctly. The Tribunal has also held that the investigation must be objective, rigorous and thorough, in that it must be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the person implicated and to give that person the opportunity to test the evidence put against her or him and to answer the charges made (see, in particular, Judgments 4663, considerations 10 to 13, 4253, consideration 3, 3314, consideration 14, and 2771, consideration 15). It is, however, well settled that a staff member alleging harassment does not need to demonstrate, nor does the person or body evaluating the claim, that the facts establish beyond reasonable doubt that harassment occurred (see, in this connection, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, and 4289, consideration 10). The main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him (see Judgments 4663, consideration 13, and 4541, consideration 8).
  The Tribunal recalls, furthermore, that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of facts, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see, in this respect, Judgments 4291, consideration 12, and 3593, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, in particular, Judgments 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4291, 4344, 4471, 4663
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; due process; harassment; inquiry; judicial review; manifest error; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; right to reply; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint allowed; deduction; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; investigation; manifest error; presumption of innocence; suspensive action;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4277

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Bureau of Weights and Measures
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  As a rule, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of an expert such as an actuary (see Judgments 3360, under 4 and 5, 3538, under 11 to 15, and 4134, under 26). However, since the complainant alleges blatant errors, the Tribunal will examine her objections.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3360, 3538, 4134
  

  Keywords:

  actuary; expert inquiry; judicial review; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4106

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to apply to him the sanction of discharge.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3872, under 2, “[c]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6)”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3757, 3872
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4101

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3831, consideration 28, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831
  

  Keywords:

  evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4091

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant is asking the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence. As stated in Judgment 3593, under 12, the Tribunal has consistently held:
  “[...] that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.”
  (See also Judgments 3995, under 7, 3882, under 13, and 3682, under 8.)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 3995
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; judicial review; manifest error; testimony;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3872

  
  124th Session, 2017
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Considerations 2 and 3

  Extract:

  Consistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6).
  [T]he Tribunal determines that the complainant’s plea that there was a conspiracy against him is unfounded as he has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate it. The Tribunal recalls that WHO bears the burden of proof in a case such as this. However, inasmuch as the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence, its approach when the issue of the burden of proof is raised is to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see Judgment 3649, under 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3649, 3757
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3831

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.

  Consideration 28

  Extract:

  Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3597, under 2, and the cases cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597
  

  Keywords:

  evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3757

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him summarily.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3597

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the relief she was awarded as a result of a harassment complaint she filed with the Federation.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal notes that as an administrative body the Appeals Commission has the authority to review the details of appeals and, when necessary, to recommend a precise remedy. According to well settled case law, the findings of such an internal body warrant deference. Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 2295, under 10, 3400, under 6, 3439, under 7, and 3447, under 8)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3439, 3447
  

  Keywords:

  internal appeals body; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3589

  
  121st Session, 2016
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns PAHO’s rejection of his request for reclassification of his post at the P.4 level.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "Much of the complainant’s legal argument addresses how he believes the HRM Classification Team erred in its approach. For example the complainant challenges the basis upon which the HRM Classification Team rejected the suitability of the comparator post (Post .0231) he had advanced in support of the reclassification of his post. But issues such as these are the essence of the discretionary evaluation undertaken in the process of classifying or reclassifying a post. They are not issues with which the Tribunal engages unless there is some manifest error of substance in that process of evaluation."

  Keywords:

  manifest error; post classification;
  

1, 2 | next >