Misconduct (392, 397, 498, 499, 507, 210, 263, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 969, 394, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 942, 514, 817, 908, 941, 943, 509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917, 642, 679, 820, 827, 652, 728, 860, 784, 898, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 913,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Misconduct
Total judgments found: 176

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

• 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 21

  Extract:

  “Additionally, as to the complainant’s allegation that she was dismissed whilst on sick leave, the Tribunal notes that there is no general principle that a staff member may not be separated while on sick leave (see Judgment 4704, considerations 9 and 10). Although this was said with reference to non-renewal/termination of contract, this principle applies all the more to dismissal for misconduct.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4704
  

  Keywords:

  misconduct; sick leave; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 21

  Extract:

  “The Tribunal recalls its consistent case law that the principle of equal treatment cannot ordinarily be invoked to challenge a finding of misconduct (see Judgments 4361, consideration 10, 4247, consideration 13, and 3575, consideration 5). Furthermore, a decision not to initiate proceedings against other staff members has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to a staff member (see Judgment 4971, consideration 6). Thus, the Organization’s failure to investigate the alleged misconduct by other staff does not nullify nor excuse the complainant’s misconduct and does not establish a legal flaw in the disciplinary proceedings against her.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575, 4247, 4361, 4971
  

  Keywords:

  equal treatment; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5153

  
  141st Session, 2026
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  “The complainant also seeks moral damages […] The unsupported characterization of the complainant’s conduct as misconduct and a breach of integrity caused him obvious moral injury for which he is entitled to moral damages (see Judgment 4819, consideration 17). He seeks 10,000 United States dollars. This amount is appropriate in the circumstances.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4819
  

  Keywords:

  misconduct; moral damages; moral injury; motivation; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• 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 7

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, a decision-maker imposing a disciplinary sanction, including the serious sanction of discharge, must be satisfied that the factual foundation for the finding of misconduct is proven beyond reasonable doubt (see Judgment 4936, consideration 6). Moreover, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4227, consideration 6, 4106, consideration 11, and 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled that the role of the Tribunal is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 4949, consideration 10, and 4362, consideration 7).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 4106, 4227, 4362, 4936, 4949
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; evidence; misconduct; role of the tribunal; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5111

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Energy Charter Conference
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  “[D]ecisions adversely affecting a staff member can constitute a hidden disciplinary sanction and, if made without following due process requirements, may be unlawful […]. The impugned decision, which conflated budgetary and misconduct considerations and thereby deprived the complainant of the guarantees inherent in a disciplinary process, constitutes a hidden disciplinary measure adopted without due process. Consequently, both the impugned decision and the decision not to renew the complainant’s contract must be set aside […].”

  Keywords:

  due process; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5105

  
  141st Session, 2026
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; misconduct; outside activity; suspension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5102

  
  141st Session, 2026
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him with immediate effect for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• 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 7

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law has consistently held that “the principle of equal treatment cannot ordinarily be invoked to challenge a finding of misconduct” […]. Moreover, a decision not to initiate proceedings against other staff members has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to a staff member […].

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; equal treatment; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4971

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  As to the allegation of unequal treatment, firstly, the Tribunal recalls its case law, stating that the principle of equal treatment cannot ordinarily be invoked to challenge a finding of misconduct. A decision not to initiate proceedings against other staff members has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to a staff member (see Judgments 4247, consideration 13, and 3575, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). It is also entrenched in case law that unequal treatment presupposes that two persons being in the same situation are treated differently. The principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other hand, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see Judgment 4712, consideration 5). This is not the case here, as the complainant and the other member of the AIP who was not dismissed on disciplinary grounds, Mr Sa., were not in the same position. As the complainant himself acknowledges, at the relevant time Mr Sa. was not a staff member, as he held an Individual Contractual Service.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575, 4247, 4712
  

  Keywords:

  misconduct; unequal treatment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4970

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure demoting her from grade P-3 to grade P-2.

  Considerations 8-9

  Extract:

  It can be seen that the first order [sought by the complainant] […] is that the two nominated decisions be quashed. This is consistent with one type of relief contemplated by Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute, namely the rescission of an impugned decision. However, an essential element of the first order is that the finding that the complainant had engaged in misconduct, was erroneous. That is to say, no finding should have been made, or perhaps could not have been made, that the complainant engaged in the misconduct alleged. No arguments of substance are advanced, or probative evidence furnished, by the complainant to establish that either she did not work, without prior authorization, as a consultant to, indirectly, the World Bank in 2017 or that she did not give false information in the earlier investigation of other allegations of unauthorized outside employment […] there was clear evidence which the complainant did not effectively rebut, of a consultancy agreement she signed on 23 February 2017 to undertake work for 90 days starting on 27 February 2017. While the consultancy contract was being financed by the World Bank, the contract was specifically with the Georgia Innovation and Technology Agency. In the initial investigation, the complainant declared, falsely, in October 2017, that she did not undertake any consultancies for other agencies, that is, other than the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and SIDA. Accordingly, the finding that the complainant had engaged in the misconduct alleged was not erroneous. The foundation for the first order is not established and the order should not be made.

  Keywords:

  demotion; disciplinary measure; misconduct; outside activity;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  S’agissant du premier moyen que soulève le requérant, le rôle du Tribunal est de déterminer si le Procureur disposait d’éléments de preuve lui permettant de parvenir à la conclusion qu’il avait été établi au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que les quatre inconduites reprochées à l’intéressé étaient constitutives, chacune, d’une «faute grave», et qu’elles l’étaient, a fortiori, considérées dans leur totalité.
  Le Tribunal relève que la CPI n’invoque aucune disposition statutaire qui comporterait une définition quelconque de la notion de faute grave sur laquelle s’appuie l’organisation pour justifier le renvoi sans préavis du requérant aux termes de l’alinéa viii) du paragraphe a) de la règle 110.6 du Règlement du personnel. Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a déjà souligné, la notion de faute grave est fort différente de celle de simple faute (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4832, aux considérants 38 et 39). Dans le jugement 4457, au considérant 11, le Tribunal a rappelé que dans le jugement 63, au considérant 1, il a observé, à propos d’une disposition similaire prévue dans le Statut du personnel d’une autre organisation internationale, que :
  «La sanction prévue étant la plus lourde des peines disciplinaires et pouvant être prononcée sans avis préalable d’un organe paritaire, cette disposition ne doit pas être interprétée d’une manière extensive. Elle s’applique au fonctionnaire qui, d’une part, manque à ses devoirs, et, d’autre part, encourt de ce fait une réprobation particulière.»
  Dans le jugement 1661, au considérant 6, le Tribunal a également eu l’occasion de préciser, à propos d’une autre disposition similaire, que:
  «La faute grave permettant la résiliation prématurée d’un engagement suppose un comportement tel du fonctionnaire qu’il rende intolérable la continuation des relations contractuelles.»

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 63, 1661, 4457, 4832
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; misconduct; serious misconduct;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; confidentiality; duty of discretion; misconduct; serious misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4944

  
  139th Session, 2025
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her internal appeal in which she contended, among other things, that the investigations conducted and mandated by the World Food Programme into her complaint of rape were ultra vires and that her complaint should instead have been referred to and investigated by national or international judicial authorities.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant’s contention that the investigations conducted and mandated by the Organization [into her complaint of rape] were ultra vires and went beyond the scope of an administrative investigation, is misconceived. Firstly, the Tribunal notes that the FAO’s legal framework enshrined a wide definition of sexual harassment, which included rape, and compelled the Organization to promptly and thoroughly investigate reports of sexual assault […] Secondly, the Tribunal notes that pursuant to the relevant provisions of the FAO Staff Rules and Regulations, the fact that deeds of staff members amount to a violation of national laws including crimes as defined by competent national laws, does not impede the FAO from taking action and investigating such deeds as misconduct for the purposes of its internal legal framework. Misconduct may well be relevant and be punishable both by national law and by the legal framework of an international organization. […] [T]he Organization is entitled to carry out an investigation into episodes of sexual harassment, including involving violence or lack of consent, even though such episodes may amount to rape according to the relevant national criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the same deed (here the alleged rape) may be regarded simultaneously as a crime according to the relevant national laws and as misconduct according to the legal framework of an international organization. Accordingly, such a deed may well be the subject matter of a criminal investigation and of internal proceedings (through an investigation into a harassment complaint and potential disciplinary proceedings) in parallel or in sequence, as can be inferred from paragraph 44 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, quoted in Section 304 of the FAO Staff Rules and Regulations. The fact that a deed may amount to a crime potentially subject to criminal investigation to be carried out by the competent national authority does not impede an international organization from taking action for the purposes of its internal rules, and, in particular, for the purpose of conducting a prompt and thorough investigation upon a report of harassment/misconduct. There are no internal rules or policies that prevent the FAO from investigating misconduct amounting to a crime, for the purposes and the effects of internal investigation and measures. In such a case, the investigation is not of a criminal nature, and it is carried out without prejudice for further – concurrent, earlier or subsequent – action taken by the competent national authority. Thus, the allegation that, in the present case, the investigations mandated and conducted by WFP were ultra vires and beyond the Organization’s mandate, is unfounded.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; discretion; harassment; investigation; misconduct; sexual harassment;
  

  
  
  

• 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 4846

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her.

  Considerations 11-12

  Extract:

  There is no material difference between the circumstances arising in this case and those that were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 4295. In that case the complaint was dismissed because the complainant had no cause of action. A decision had been made by the Director General that no disciplinary measure would be imposed on the complainant. As the Tribunal observed, the decision was beneficial to the complainant, and thus he had no cause of action. To the extent that a finding of fact (contested by the complainant) had been made which led to the decision, that finding, as the Tribunal explained, “forms part of the reasons articulated in arriving at the decision”. In the present case, the decision not to commence disciplinary proceedings was likewise favourable to the complainant. To the extent findings of fact were made and adhered to in the impugned decision and reflected in the modified text of the letter of 22 February 2018, they were findings informing what was ultimately the favourable decision. Given the modification of the letter, there was no conclusory finding that the complainant had engaged in misconduct, the matter that troubled the WAB […] The complainant has no cause of action and her complaint should be dismissed.

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; impugned decision; misconduct; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4839

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The IOM’s legal framework does not specify the applicable standard of proof for a finding of harassment. Regarding this point, the Tribunal’s case law states that, while the standard of proof required to impose disciplinary measures on an individual charged with misconduct is that of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the applicable standard of proof for a finding of harassment is a less onerous standard (see, for example, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, 4289, consideration 10, and 4207, consideration 20).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4207, 4289, 4663
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; harassment; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4828

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close as unsubstantiated two investigations into allegations of misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• 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 18

  Extract:

  [I]n the present case, since the complainant’s actions could constitute misconduct, the proper procedure to be followed was the disciplinary one, which best safeguarded his right of defence, even though his conduct could also be regarded as showing unsatisfactory performance.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; misconduct; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4764

  
  137th Session, 2024
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4762

  
  137th Session, 2024
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; misconduct; motivation of final decision; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4755

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the cases arising from his reports of alleged misconduct and to reject his request to be provided with an unredacted version of two investigation reports. He also claims institutional harassment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4727

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  [T]he question of the alleged lack of injury suffered by the complainant in fact relates to the merits of the complaint rather than to its receivability, and the objection to receivability raised must therefore be rejected. Clearly, a complainant has a cause of action when seeking compensation from an organisation for injury that she or he claims to have suffered as a result of an unlawful act on the part of that organisation.
  According to a general principle of law which the Tribunal applies in its case law, a claim for compensation can only be granted if the complainant provides evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see, for example, Judgments 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, 3507, considerations 14 and 15, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3507, 3778, 4156
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; misconduct; moral injury; receivability of the complaint;
  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >