|
|
 |
|
|
Proportionality (210,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Proportionality
Total judgments found: 93
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 5160
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 9
Extract:
« [L]e Tribunal considère que, contrairement à ce que soutient l’intéressé, la sanction disciplinaire de rétrogradation qui lui a été infligée n’était pas disproportionnée au regard de la faute commise, qui constitue un grave manquement au devoir d’intégrité incombant aux fonctionnaires internationaux (voir, par exemple, le jugement 3953, au considérant 14). A cet égard, le Tribunal rappelle qu’il accorde un grand respect aux décisions concernant les sanctions lorsque la faute commise implique de la malhonnêteté, des déclarations mensongères ou un manque d’intégrité (voir également, sur ce point, les jugements 4749, au considérant 10, 4308, au considérant 18, et 2699, au considérant 15). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3953, 4308, 4749
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; downgrading; fraud; proportionality;
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 34
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion is exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3971, consideration 17, 3944, consideration 12, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11). A staff member’s lengthy service and recognised professional abilities and previous good record are not, by themselves, mitigating factors (see Judgment 4859, consideration 28), even though in some cases they can be (see Judgments 4949, consideration 26, 4457, consideration 20, and 3083, consideration 20). […] “[I]n determining the appropriate sanction in the specific circumstances of this case, the complainant’s unblemished service over more than 20 years should have been weighed more as a mitigating factor (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20), rather than as an aggravating factor.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3083, 3640, 3944, 3971, 4247, 4457, 4504, 4660, 4859, 4949
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment 5133
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to maintain its earlier decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of discharge from service after due notice and to pay her 50 per cent of the termination indemnity in execution of Judgment 4460.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Regarding the severity of a disciplinary measure, the Tribunal’s case law has it that while the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, for example, Judgments 4832, consideration 47, 4343, consideration 17, 4244, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account and, in the case of dismissal, the closest scrutiny is necessary (see, for example, Judgment 2656, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2656, 4244, 4343, 4832
Keywords:
decision-maker; disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
Judgment 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality[…]. In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal does not substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability. Lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though a decision in that regard is discretionary in nature. In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account […]. The evaluation of the weight, if any, of the extenuating circumstances falls within the discretion of the Organization.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s previous period of unblemished service is not necessarily a mitigating factor […].
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; performance; proportionality;
Judgment 4949
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Considerations 20-24
Extract:
S’agissant du deuxième moyen que soulève le requérant, selon lequel la sanction infligée serait disproportionnée, le Tribunal rappelle tout d’abord que, dans le jugement 4749, au considérant 10, il a souligné ce qui suit sur l’importance qu’une mesure disciplinaire ne soit pas disproportionnée et sur les conséquences qui découlent d’un manque de proportionnalité:
«Dans le jugement 4478, aux considérants 11 et 12, le Tribunal a rappelé que “[l]a jurisprudence confirme que la décision sur le type de mesures disciplinaires à prendre relève du pouvoir d’appréciation de l’autorité disciplinaire, pour autant que la mesure ne soit pas disproportionnée” (voir aussi le jugement 3640, au considérant 29), et que “le Tribunal ne saurait substituer son appréciation à celle d’une autorité disciplinaire, [car] il se borne à évaluer si la décision est dans les limites de l’acceptable” (voir également à ce sujet le jugement 3971, au considérant 17). Dans ce jugement 4478, le Tribunal a en outre relevé que, si le manque de proportionnalité doit être considéré comme une erreur de droit justifiant l’annulation d’une mesure disciplinaire, “[l]orsque l’on cherche à déterminer si une mesure disciplinaire est disproportionnée par rapport à l’infraction commise, il y a lieu de prendre en compte les circonstances, tant objectives que subjectives, et [qu’]en cas de licenciement une étude particulièrement attentive s’impose”. [...]»
(Voir également, à ce sujet, les jugements 4859, au considérant 28, 4858, au considérant 28, 4745, au considérant 11, 4697, au considérant 24, 4660, aux considérants 16 à 19, et 4504, au considérant 11.)
Ainsi, selon une jurisprudence bien établie du Tribunal, l’autorité investie du pouvoir disciplinaire au sein d’une organisation internationale dispose d’un pouvoir d’appréciation quant au choix de la sanction infligée à l’un de ses fonctionnaires à raison d’une faute commise par ce dernier, mais sa décision doit cependant, dans tous les cas, respecter le principe de proportionnalité qui s’impose en la matière (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4832, au considérant 47, 4504, au considérant 11, 4457, au considérant 20, 3971, au considérant 17, 3944, au considérant 12, et 3640, au considérant 29).
À ce sujet, le Tribunal constate que la CPI fait erreur quand elle affirme dans ses écritures que c’est au requérant seul qu’il incomberait de démontrer que la sanction infligée était disproportionnée. En effet, s’agissant du respect du principe de proportionnalité, qui doit guider toute organisation dans la détermination de la sanction à infliger en matière disciplinaire, c’est au Tribunal qu’il appartient de le vérifier avec l’éclairage des arguments des deux parties sur la question, sans que la charge de la preuve incombe plus particulièrement à l’une d’entre elles.
Dans la présente situation, le Tribunal considère que la sanction de renvoi infligée au requérant – aggravée, qui plus est, par la suppression du préavis et des indemnités de licenciement – était d’une sévérité excessive et a ainsi été prononcée en méconnaissance du principe de proportionnalité. Le Tribunal relève que la sanction infligée à l’intéressé était la mesure disciplinaire la plus sévère prévue par les dispositions statutaires de la CPI et qu’elle dépassait largement les limites de ce qui était acceptable dans les circonstances de l’espèce ainsi que le démontrent les considérations suivantes.
À cet égard, le Tribunal observe, en premier lieu, qu’en ce qui concerne toutes les allégations reprochées au requérant autres que celles portant sur la violation de l’obligation de confidentialité ou de l’obligation de réserve, la sanction de renvoi sans préavis pour faute grave n’était pas ouverte à l’organisation aux termes de l’alinéa viii) du paragraphe a) de la règle 110.6 sur lequel elle s’est appuyée en l’espèce. […]
[A]insi que le Tribunal l’a rappelé dans le jugement 4362, au considérant 18, «[l]e manquement au devoir de confidentialité par un fonctionnaire d’un tribunal international constitue une question extrêmement grave [et dans] certains cas, la gravité d’un tel manquement justifiera assurément un renvoi sans préavis. [Toutefois, dans] d’autres cas, cette sanction ne sera pas forcément justifiée.» […]
En l’espèce, comme il a été dit, le manquement reproché au requérant à cet égard ne relevait pas de l’obligation de confidentialité en l’absence de preuve au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que des informations confidentielles avaient été divulguées. Il relevait plutôt d’un manquement à l’obligation de réserve. Or, ici, le Tribunal estime que ce manquement ne constituait pas une faute d’une intensité qui permette de la qualifier de faute grave, si bien que, dans cette mesure, la sanction de renvoi sans préavis pour faute grave ne trouvait pas application.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3944, 3971, 4362, 4457, 4478, 4504, 4660, 4697, 4745, 4749, 4832, 4858, 4859
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Considerations 25-26
Extract:
En troisième lieu, le dossier fait apparaître que le requérant pouvait se prévaloir de notables circonstances atténuantes, qu’il convenait de prendre dûment en considération en vertu des principes généraux applicables en matière disciplinaire. Or l’analyse des circonstances atténuantes qui pouvaient s’appliquer dans la situation du requérant était des plus succinctes dans la décision attaquée, tandis que celle portant sur les circonstances présumément aggravantes était nettement plus détaillée.
Le Tribunal relève notamment à ce sujet qu’au nombre des circonstances atténuantes se trouvaient assurément la longue ancienneté de l’intéressé au sein de l’organisation, l’état impeccable de son dossier disciplinaire, sa contribution de qualité à la Cour que révélait en particulier la teneur de ses évaluations de performance et les recommandations, le soutien et l’appréciation notable de plusieurs de ses collègues qui avaient témoigné de son intégrité et de son professionnalisme. S’y ajoutaient également, au vu des écritures et des pièces du dossier, la collaboration établie du requérant au processus d’enquête, ainsi que l’absence de démonstration que la CPI aurait pu avoir subi un quelconque préjudice en raison du comportement reproché au requérant quant aux deux sujets litigieux qui avaient été abordés lors de l’incident du 11 octobre 2021.
En revanche, les circonstances aggravantes identifiées par le Procureur dans la décision attaquée constituaient, pour ce qui est de la durée de l’engagement du requérant, de sa position dans l’organisation et de ses responsabilités, des circonstances qui pouvaient tout aussi bien être qualifiées d’atténuantes. […]
Le Tribunal relève que la sévérité de la sanction prononcée à l’encontre du requérant apparaissait d’ailleurs d’autant plus disproportionnée que, comme il a été dit, celui-ci était à l’époque employé par la CPI depuis dix-huit ans sans que sa conduite ait jusqu’alors jamais appelé de reproche de la part de l’organisation (voir, par exemple, à ce sujet, le jugement 4457, au considérant 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4457
Keywords:
aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4948
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him from duty with pay and with immediate effect.
Consideration 16
Extract:
À titre de troisième argument relatif à l’illégalité alléguée de la décision attaquée, le requérant soutient que la décision de suspension était disproportionnée, car il ne représentait aucun risque pour les intérêts et la réputation de la Cour. Mais, sur cet aspect, le rapport de la Commission de recours et la décision attaquée qui a fait sienne ses recommandations expliquent en détails en quoi les intérêts et la réputation de la Cour étaient perçus par l’organisation comme étant potentiellement à risque dans un contexte où ce qui était reproché à l’intéressé était une faute qui pouvait être qualifiée de grave et pouvait constituer une violation sérieuse de l’obligation de confidentialité, du devoir de réserve ou du devoir de loyauté. Vu le caractère sérieux de cette faute potentielle, cela pouvait justifier une décision de suspension avec effet immédiat.
S’agissant de la nécessité d’une mesure de suspension, la jurisprudence du Tribunal reconnaît que, si l’autorité considère que l’accusation de faute formulée contre un fonctionnaire est légitime, «point n’est cependant besoin, à ce stade, d’apporter la preuve que les accusations sont fondées» (voir le jugement 4658, au considérant 2). En l’espèce, les écritures établissent qu’une faute potentiellement grave était reprochée au fonctionnaire. En outre, le Tribunal a rappelé dans ses jugements 4361, au considérant 11, et 4359, au considérant 11, que le paragraphe a) de la règle 110.5 du Règlement du personnel de la CPI est formulé en termes très généraux et vise à conférer au Procureur un pouvoir d’évaluation de la situation à sa discrétion. Dans de tels cas, il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle du Procureur.
Dans un contexte où le Procureur avait reçu des informations en apparence valables de la part de M. D. sur les manquements allégués et où ces informations soulevaient des violations potentielles du devoir de réserve ou de l’obligation de confidentialité du requérant, ainsi qu’un possible partage inopportun d’informations sur un dossier de l’organisation et sur la frustration de ce dernier quant à la réorganisation de certains aspects du fonctionnement de son service, lesquels pouvaient être susceptibles de saper la réputation ou l’image de la Cour auprès d’un État partie, le Tribunal considère que le requérant n’établit pas en quoi, au moment où elle a été appliquée, cette mesure de suspension avec maintien du traitement et avec effet immédiat n’était pas justifiée.
Ce troisième argument à l’appui du deuxième moyen doit être également écarté.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4359, 4361, 4658
Keywords:
confidentiality; duty of discretion; proportionality; suspension;
Judgment 4924
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, la charge de la preuve de la réalité des fautes imputées à un fonctionnaire dans le cadre d’une procédure disciplinaire incombe à l’organisation dont il relève (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4051, au considérant 5, 3875, au considérant 8, 3297, au considérant 8, ou 2849, au considérant 16) et cette preuve doit être établie au-delà de tout doute raisonnable (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4663, au considérant 12, 4289, au considérant 10, 2849, au considérant 16, ou 2786, au considérant 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 2849, 3297, 3875, 4051, 4289, 4663
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
Toutefois, le Tribunal estime qu’il ne peut pour autant être tenu pour établi au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la plainte ainsi déposée ait constitué une dénonciation calomnieuse. Une plainte ne saurait en effet être ainsi qualifiée que si elle a été introduite de mauvaise foi. Or, en l’espèce, aucun élément de preuve versé au dossier ne permet d’affirmer avec certitude que le requérant avait clairement conscience, lorsqu’il a formé sa plainte pour propos mensongers dirigée contre M. Do., de la fausseté des accusations contenues dans celle-ci.
[…] Le Tribunal relève d’abord, à cet égard, que, dans la décision de licenciement […], cette tentative de fraude est présentée tantôt comme une faute distincte de la dénonciation calomnieuse […] tantôt comme la circonstance aggravante d’une faute unique que constituerait cette dénonciation calomnieuse. La confusion résultant de cette ambiguïté n’est pas admissible dans une décision telle qu’une sanction disciplinaire – et, qui plus est, une révocation –, dont les motifs doivent être définis avec une particulière rigueur.
Mais cette seconde charge ne pouvait de toute façon être retenue. Il ressort en effet des termes mêmes de la qualification de cette dernière que la tentative de fraude reprochée au requérant était «matérialisée par [la] dénonciation calomnieuse» qui lui était par ailleurs imputée. Dès lors que le Tribunal estime, comme il a été dit au considérant précédent, que cette dénonciation calomnieuse n’est elle-même pas établie, la tentative de fraude en question se trouve privée, par voie de conséquence, de son élément constitutif essentiel.
Au surplus, la faute tenant au dépôt d’une plainte abusive n’aurait pu légalement justifier, en elle-même, l’infliction d’une sanction disciplinaire aussi lourde qu’un licenciement.
Il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que, si l’autorité investie du pouvoir disciplinaire au sein d’une organisation internationale dispose d’un pouvoir d’appréciation quant au choix de la sanction infligée à l’un de ses fonctionnaires à raison d’une faute commise par celui-ci, sa décision doit cependant, dans tous les cas, respecter le principe de proportionnalité qui s’impose en la matière (voir notamment les jugements 4457, au considérant 20, 3944, au considérant 12, 3927, au considérant 13, ou 3640, au considérant 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4457
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; discretion; judicial review; proportionality;
Judgment 4859
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 28
Extract:
The complainant’s lengthy service with UNAIDS and his recognised professional abilities and previous good record are not, by themselves, mitigating factors (see Judgment 3083, consideration 20), even though in some cases they can be (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083, 4457
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Consideration 28
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4858
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.
Consideration 28
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Consideration 28
Extract:
The complainant’s lengthy service with UNAIDS and her recognised professional abilities and previous good record are not, by themselves, mitigating factors (see Judgment 3083, consideration 20), even though in some cases they can be (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083, 4457
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
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 19
Extract:
In his internal appeal, the complainant submitted that the measure of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate, primarily because in imposing it, WFP did not take into consideration his “long and distinguished service” with it. He also submitted that the measure had been imposed on an improper evidentiary basis, which he repeats before the Tribunal. The Appeals Committee concluded that the measure of dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the misconduct the complainant committed, with which conclusion the Director-General concurred in the impugned decision, noting that in imposing that measure, he had taken into account the complainant’s service but had decided that the imposition of a less severe measure was not warranted having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the public nature of the complainant’s actions and his position. The Tribunal is satisfied that this determination was open to the Director-General in the circumstances of the case and discerns no manifest error in that determination. It therefore rejects the complainant’s claim that the disciplinary measure of dismissal was not proportionate.
Keywords:
aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conflict of interest; disciplinary measure; misconduct; organisation's interest; outside activity; political activity; proportionality; staff member's duties;
Consideration 18
Extract:
Regarding the disciplinary measure imposed on the complainant, the general principle in the Tribunal’s case law is that the severity of the sanction that is imposed on a staff member of an international organization whose misconduct has been established is in the discretion of the decision-making authority, who must however exercise it in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Judgments 3953, consideration 14, and 3640, consideration 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3953
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; misconduct; proportionality;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 47 and 49-50
Extract:
In support of her fourth plea, the complainant maintains that the organization furthermore ignored the principle of proportionality when it decided to impose a disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades upon her.
The Tribunal has often recalled that, while a disciplinary authority within an international organization has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member for misconduct, the decision must always respect the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Judgment 3640, consideration 29). In Judgment 4697, consideration 24, referring to its prior Judgment 4504, consideration 11, the Tribunal indeed observed that lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though the decision in that regard is discretionary in nature (see also Judgment 4745, consideration 11).
[…]
In a situation where the misconduct that formed the basis of the disciplinary sanction was, in the end, as properly noted by the Appeal Board, a failure to supervise a staff member, a demotion by two grades clearly lacked proportionality when balanced against the drastic consequences that a demotion by two grades entailed for the complainant, notably in a situation where, after close to 20 years within the organization, a demotion by two grades meant for her going back to a grade even lower than the one she held when she started at ITU in 2000. That demotion was moreover for an indefinite period of time and was thus punishing her up to the end of her career at ITU given her age and seniority, in a situation where the record was absolutely clear that she had no participation, no involvement and no benefit in the fraudulent scheme that remained undetected for everyone within the organization for more than seven years up until an external anonymous whistleblower warned ITU.
The Tribunal considers that, in the present case, the Secretary-General could not, without breaching the principle of proportionality, impose on the complainant the sanction of demotion by two grades. This was an error of law and it amounted to an irregularity that vitiated the impugned decision, as well as the prior decision […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 4504, 4697, 4745
Keywords:
demotion; disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant […] requests that the Tribunal order that the new disciplinary measure to be imposed, if any, be limited to a lesser one than that which the Director-General imposed in his original decision of 8 May 2018, pursuant to the principle of double jeopardy. The Tribunal does not have the power to make orders of this kind, nor can it limit in such a way the discretion of the Director-General to determine the appropriate disciplinary measures, if any, to be imposed, in the event that misconduct is established.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; order; proportionality;
Judgment 4815
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his summary dismissal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discretion; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4779
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 16
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, in particular, Judgments 4400, consideration 29, 3944, consideration 12, 3927, consideration 13, and 3640, consideration 29).
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the fraudulent acts referred to in consideration 15 above, although involving relatively modest amounts, constitute serious breaches of the duty of honesty incumbent on any member of the staff of an international organisation. In addition, the repeated failures by the complainant to honour private obligations were, as stated in consideration 13, liable to undermine the dignity of the status of international civil servant and tarnish the reputation of ITU. As correctly pointed out in the decision of 30 July 2021, the fact that the complainant worked in the Human Resources Management Department is an aggravating factor since it can normally be assumed that staff within that department will be particularly careful to observe the ethical standards expected of the organisation’s staff members. Lastly, although the personal difficulties referred to above might certainly be considered as a mitigating factor, the facts at issue would in any case be no less serious on that account.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4400
Keywords:
aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
Judgment 4770
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 dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4749
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment with compensation in lieu of notice.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
In Judgment 4478, considerations 11 and 12, the Tribunal recalled that “[t]he case law confirms that the decision on the type of disciplinary action taken remains in the discretion of the disciplinary authority, as long as the measure is not disproportionate” (see also Judgment 3640, consideration 29), and that “the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, [as] the Tribunal limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability” (see also on this point Judgment 3971, consideration 17). In Judgment 4478, the Tribunal further observed that, although a lack of proportionality must be seen as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure, “[i]n determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account and, in the case of dismissal, the closest scrutiny is necessary”. However, in Judgment 2699, consideration 15, the Tribunal emphasized that it will accord a high degree of deference to decisions concerning sanctions where the misconduct relates to issues of dishonesty, misrepresentation and a lack of integrity (see also on this point Judgment 4308, consideration 18).
In the present case, the Tribunal notes that the sanction imposed on the complainant, although severe, was not the most serious disciplinary measure provided for in the ICC Staff Rules, which is summary dismissal for serious misconduct. Moreover, the aforementioned provisions specifically placed the complainant under duties of probity and honesty, and it is plain from the submissions and the evidence that his role in the Victims and Witnesses Section of the Registry of the Court in Côte d’Ivoire entailed the obligation to demonstrate irreproachable integrity and to conduct himself with the highest probity when, inter alia, providing proof of expenditure chargeable to the organisation. However, the complainant’s submission of falsified invoices that he himself had acquired for the purpose of providing proof of official expenditure directly undermined the trust essential to his continued relationship with the Organisation. The Tribunal therefore finds that, despite its severity, the sanction imposed was not disproportionate [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3971, 4308, 4478
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; fraud; proportionality;
Consideration 12
Extract:
As regards the fact that the complainant had not been involved in any other incident since he joined the ICC, which could usually constitute a mitigating circumstance, it is clear from the impugned decision that the Registrar of the Court did take this into account. Similarly, the Registrar did consider the complainant’s argument that the sums involved were relatively small and that the offending conduct had not resulted in the organisation incurring any financial loss. However, these mitigating circumstances in fact carried little weight in view of the gravity of the misconduct. Moreover, even if the fact that the complainant had acted, as he submits, at his supervisor’s instigation were to be regarded as a mitigating circumstance, this would not lead to the misconduct being considered less serious.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; fraud; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment 4745
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability. Lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though a decision in that regard is discretionary in nature. In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein). […]
The evaluation of the weight, if any, of the extenuating circumstances falls within the discretion of the Organization. […]
Apologizing after the events is not a mitigating factor in the absence of concrete actions by the complainant to remedy the difficult situation he created.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 24
Extract:
[W]ith regard to the complainant’s [...] plea, that the sanction imposed was unlawful and disproportionate, the Tribunal recalled, in its Judgment 4504, consideration 11, that “[l]ack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though a decision in that regard is discretionary in nature. In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account (see Judgment 4478, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4478, 4504
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 16
Extract:
Under settled case law of the Tribunal, “[t]he disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area” (see, for example, Judgments 4504, consideration 11, 3971, consideration 17, 3944, consideration 12, and 3640, consideration 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3944, 3971, 4504
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4519
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay.
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of a staff member is an interim measure which need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 1927, consideration 5, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal and will not be set aside unless it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see aforementioned Judgment 2365, consideration 4(a),
and Judgments 2698, consideration 9, 3037, consideration 9, and 4452, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2698, 3037, 4452
Keywords:
proportionality; role of the tribunal; suspension;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
