Disciplinary measure (507, 210, 263, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 969, 394, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 942, 514, 817, 908, 941, 943,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary measure
Total judgments found: 226

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | 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;
  

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  «L’intéressé demande également au Tribunal de condamner l’Agence au paiement d’une indemnité en réparation du retard mis pour traiter sa réclamation. Le Tribunal considère que le délai de près de deux ans et demi qui s’est écoulé entre l’introduction de sa réclamation, le 20 avril 2022, et l’intervention de la décision de rejet de cette réclamation par le Directeur général, en date du 18 septembre 2024, est excessif, notamment au regard de la nature de la décision contestée, et qu’il sera fait une juste réparation du préjudice ainsi causé au requérant en lui octroyant la somme de 1 500 euros.»

  Keywords:

  delay in internal procedure; disciplinary measure; moral injury;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; demotion; disciplinary measure;
  

  
  
  

• 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 4

  Extract:

  “[B]efore adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff concerned the opportunity to defend themselves in adversarial proceedings (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, and 3875, consideration 3). The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgments 4832, consideration 28, 4343, consideration 13, and 2496, consideration 7). Before disciplinary proceedings are undertaken, the investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4697, consideration 12, 4491, consideration 19, and 4011, consideration 9). This implies that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence (see Judgment 5003, consideration 5).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4011, 4343, 4491, 4697, 4832, 5003
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence during investigation; investigation;
  

  Consideration 24

  Extract:

  “[T]he Tribunal recalls its established case law concerning disciplinary matters. The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, 4491, consideration 19, and 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, and 4364, consideration 10).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4364, 4491, 4858
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
  

  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 5149

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue him with a written reprimand.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "[The Tribunal] exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. Accordingly, it will not interfere with such a decision unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts. However, as explained in Judgment 274, a warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; reprimand; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5146

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the FAO’s decisions to impose on him the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal for misconduct, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations (UN) system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; termination of employment;
  

  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;
  

  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 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 23

  Extract:

  [T]here was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary stage prior to the imposition of any sanction upon the complainant. Notably, Rule 10.2.03 of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, then in force, under the heading “Due process”, stated, in effect, that no disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a staff member unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as the right to seek assistance in his or her defence, as well as be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the Director-General issued the disciplinary measures against the complainant in the letter of 7 February 2020 to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report, as was required by paragraph 1.18 of Part IX of the Policy on Confidentiality. The complainant’s right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was thereby violated.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary charges; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; legal assistance; notification of allegations; patere legem; right; rules of the organisation;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  breach of confidentiality; complaint allowed; disciplinary measure;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[F]irm and constant precedents have it 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 and whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
  It is also worth recalling that in Judgment 4579, consideration 4, the Tribunal emphasized that “[it] shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error […]” […].
  With respect to the burden of proof applicable in disciplinary proceedings, it is furthermore recognized that “the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed […]."
  Lastly, in respect of harassment matters such as the instant case, established precedent of the Tribunal states 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 or events complained of […].”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4579
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; harassment; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  [T]he relevant question in relation to the issue referred to in consideration 3 [...], is whether the Registrar motivated his decision to reject the recommendations of the Disciplinary Advisory Board as to what the appropriate disciplinary sanction was. While he referred to those recommendations, he did not explain why he rejected them. The case law is clear. For example, in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, the Tribunal said:
  “The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.”
  And, in Judgment 3969, consideration 10, the Tribunal reiterated the above statement noting that:
  “These observations, as they relate to reports and conclusions of internal appeal bodies, are equally applicable to reports and opinions of a Disciplinary Committee.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862, 3969
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The impugned decision will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to the ICC in order for it to decide whether to reject or accept the recommendations of the Disciplinary Advisory Board and to explain why.

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision;
  

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  In the present case, the Disciplinary Advisory Board recommended two sanctions which were, at least arguably, within the range of available sanctions for the misconduct of the complainant. So too was the sanction actually adopted. The ICC’s answer to this argument appears to be that it was clear the executive head, namely the Registrar, adopted a more severe sanction which impliedly explained the rejection of the recommended sanctions of the Disciplinary Advisory Board. But that is not enough. Internal appeal and disciplinary bodies play an important role in the internal system of justice for international civil servants. It has long been settled that recommendations they make can be rejected. But the role of such bodies is fortified by the obligation of the decision maker to explain her or his rejection of those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 4832, considerations 31 and 32, and 4697, consideration 5). The Registrar failed to do this in the present case. In the result his decision is, in this respect, unlawful and will be set aside.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4697, 4832
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; warning;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  “As to the standard of proof required in disciplinary matters, the Tribunal recalls that its case law has consistently found that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt […]. The burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed […]. In respect of the standard of proof, the Tribunal stated that the relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt […]. Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
  The fact that an organization, in finding that misconduct occurred, fails to use the exact wording “beyond reasonable doubt” does not necessarily imply that misconduct has not been proven to the requisite standard. It is for the Tribunal to assess whether an organization could consider misconduct to be proven to that standard even though the decision-making authority did not expressly use the term “beyond reasonable doubt” […].
  […] As to the complainant’s argument that the investigator failed to apply the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof, the Tribunal notes that the role of an investigative body is to conduct a fact-finding investigation, that is to gather evidence and to recollect the facts in light of the evidence available. It is not the investigator’s role to reach a conclusion of whether misconduct occurred beyond reasonable doubt. This evaluation is reserved to the decision-making authority […].”

  Keywords:

  benefit of doubt; beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; presumption of innocence; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5084

  
  140th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s failure to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations concerning his harassment complaint.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; harassment; ombudsman; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal notes that, pursuant to Article 12(1)(b) of Circular No. 286, the President has a clear discretionary power to decide whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Secondly, the Tribunal’s case law, more generally, establishes that the alleged victim of harassment is not entitled to have a disciplinary sanction applied to the alleged author. The Tribunal recalls that disciplinary relations between an organization and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member ordinarily will not adversely affect other staff. Thus, a staff member ordinarily has no cause of action to challenge a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one on another staff member […]. […] The Circular and the Tribunal’s case law more generally do not provide staff with any right to request disciplinary proceedings against another member of staff. In this respect, the complainant’s claims based on the EPO’s failure to impose disciplinary measures against Mr L. are, at the very least, unfounded, if not irreceivable for lack of cause of action.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; disciplinary measure; harassment; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5057

  
  140th Session, 2025
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour représailles à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  [L]e requérant demande au Tribunal d’ordonner l’ouverture d’une procédure disciplinaire à l’encontre de M. M. du fait des représailles qu’il impute à celui-ci. Mais, outre que, comme il a été dit, l’annulation des décisions litigieuses n’induit nullement une reconnaissance de la réalité de ces représailles, le Tribunal n’a pas compétence, en tout état de cause, pour prononcer des injonctions de cette nature (voir notamment, au sujet de conclusions à des fins analogues, les jugements 4512, au considérant 6, 4313, au considérant 11, ou 4241, au considérant 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241, 4313, 4512
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; injunction;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5026

  
  140th Session, 2025
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct with one month’s notice and the payment of an indemnity, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; complaint allowed; delay; disciplinary measure; due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report; investigative body;
  

  
  
  

• 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;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; investigation; sexual harassment;
  

  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;
  

  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 5003

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  Firm and constant precedents of the Tribunal have it that, before adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff member concerned the opportunity to defend herself or himself in adversarial proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3875, consideration 3). Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if she or he so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgments 4832, consideration 28, 4343, consideration 13, and 2496, consideration 7). Before disciplinary proceedings are undertaken, the investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 12, 4491, consideration 19, and 4011, consideration 9). This implies that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence (see Judgments 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence. In the present case, the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not even dismissed with a reason, it was ignored completely. […]
  It is true that, pursuant to WHO e-Manual, section III.12.4.530, the hearing of witnesses is at the discretion of the GBA, but the GBA must give reasons for its refusal to grant the hearing of witnesses, whilst in the present case the complainant’s request was merely ignored with no grounds at all.
  The failure, during the entire process of investigating and evaluating the position of the complainant, to consider hearing the witnesses listed by the complainant is, in the Tribunal’s view, a serious flaw in the process, as some of the charges against the complainant are based only on the report and on the interview of the alleged victim, and one of the charges (namely the one referring to unwelcome hugging) is based on the interview of Mr W. In conclusion, the pleas are well founded to the extent that the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not considered. It cannot be established, at this stage, what would have been the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings if the witnesses listed by the complainant had been interviewed, namely, it cannot be established whether the findings would have warranted, in any event, the most severe sanction or a less severe sanction. Moreover, the Tribunal, in cases where it found that some of the charges were not proven “beyond reasonable doubt” due to the failure to consider exculpatory evidence, annulled the disciplinary decision in its entirety (see Judgments 4456, considerations 9, 16 and 17, 4453, consideration 15, and 4362, considerations 17 and 18).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4343, 4362, 4453, 4456, 4697, 4832
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence during investigation; investigation; right to be heard;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  As for moral damages, the Tribunal will take into account that the complainant admitted some of the misbehaviour he was charged with, namely the text message concerning the pregnancy test, the small talk concerning Ms Z.’s marital status, and his request for the search of a second wife for him. This misbehaviour amounts at least to inappropriate conduct which would likely have warranted, in any event, a disciplinary sanction. Even if it is not the role of the Tribunal to establish whether this misbehaviour should have warranted a sanction and which kind of sanction, they are taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether and to what extent the complainant suffered a moral injury (see Judgment 4362, consideration 18).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4362
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; moral injury;
  

  
  
  

• 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 5

  Extract:

  In his further arguments, the complainant tries to establish that the impugned decision and the disciplinary decision are substantially flawed. He specifically contests all the counts he was charged with.
  Before addressing the complainant’s arguments concerning each charge, it is appropriate to recall the scope of the Tribunal’s review in disciplinary matters and the standard of evidence required for disciplinary convictions.
  Firstly, the Tribunal shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error (see Judgments 4770, consideration 12, 4745, consideration 5, 4579, consideration 4, 4460, consideration 8, and the additional cases quoted therein).
  In disciplinary matters, the Tribunal has consistently found that the burden of proof rests on an organization, which has to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see Judgment 4749, consideration 5). 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 Judgment 4362, consideration 7). Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence (see Judgment 3863, consideration 8).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863, 4362, 4460, 4579, 4745, 4749, 4770
  

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; judicial review;
  

  
  
  

• 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 keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; demotion; disciplinary measure; 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 10

  Extract:

  Dans le jugement 4749, au considérant 5, le Tribunal a rappelé ce qui suit sur la charge de la preuve qui incombe à l’organisation en matière de sanction disciplinaire, ainsi que sur le rôle du Tribunal dans l’appréciation du niveau de preuve requis:
  «En matière de sanction disciplinaire, il ressort d’une jurisprudence bien établie du Tribunal que c’est à l’organisation qu’incombe la charge de prouver au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que le fonctionnaire visé est coupable des actes reprochés avant d’infliger une sanction disciplinaire. Au sujet de ce niveau de preuve, le Tribunal a notamment précisé ce qui suit dans le jugement 4362, aux considérants 7, 8 et 10:
  7. [...] Le niveau de preuve requis est celui de “au-delà de tout doute raisonnable”. Dans une affaire comme le cas d’espèce, le Tribunal n’a pas pour rôle d’évaluer lui-même les éléments de preuve ni de déterminer si l’accusation de faute a été établie au-delà de tout doute raisonnable; il doit plutôt apprécier si le décideur disposait d’éléments de preuve lui permettant de parvenir à cette conclusion (voir, par exemple, le jugement 3863, au considérant 11). Une partie du rôle du Tribunal consiste à déterminer si le décideur a correctement appliqué le niveau de preuve au moment d’évaluer les éléments de preuve (voir le jugement 3863, au considérant 8).
  8. Le niveau de preuve “au-delà de tout doute raisonnable” n’est pas censé créer un obstacle insurmontable qui empêcherait les organisations de sanctionner un fonctionnaire à l’issue d’une procédure disciplinaire. Il ne devrait assurément pas avoir cet effet. Le Tribunal s’est prononcé à de nombreuses reprises sur ce qui est exigé. En réalité, ce niveau de preuve est à mettre en relation avec le fait qu’une procédure disciplinaire peut souvent avoir de graves conséquences pour le fonctionnaire concerné – y compris son licenciement – et peut également porter gravement atteinte à sa réputation et à sa carrière de fonctionnaire international. Dès lors, il y a lieu d’exiger de l’organisation qu’elle ait une forte conviction que la mesure disciplinaire soit justifiée parce que la faute a été prouvée. La probabilité qu’une faute ait été commise ne suffit pas et n’offre pas une protection adéquate aux fonctionnaires internationaux. Il n’est guère utile d’affirmer, en substance, que le niveau de preuve requis correspond à la norme “de droit pénal” appliquée dans certains systèmes juridiques nationaux, et que la norme “de droit civil” appliquée dans ces mêmes systèmes conviendrait mieux en ce qu’elle implique d’apprécier les preuves selon la prépondérance des probabilités. Le niveau de preuve “au-delà de tout doute raisonnable” qui découle de la jurisprudence du Tribunal, telle qu’elle a évolué au fil des décennies, répond à un objectif propre au droit de la fonction publique internationale. [...]
  10. [...] Le niveau de preuve “au-delà de tout doute raisonnable” concerne aussi bien l’établissement de faits précis que le degré global de conviction que les accusations portées contre le fonctionnaire ont été établies. En ce qui concerne la preuve de tout fait pertinent essentiel, la personne ou l’organe chargés d’apprécier les preuves et de prendre une décision au terme de la procédure disciplinaire doivent être convaincus au-delà de tout doute raisonnable qu’un fait particulier est avéré.»
  (Voir également, à ce sujet, les jugements 4832, au considérant 36, 4764, au considérant 13, 4362, au considérant 10, et 4360, au considérant 11.)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4360, 4362, 4749, 4764, 4832
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
  

  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 4945

  
  139th Session, 2025
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision to confirm the allegations of sexual harassment against him, to impose on him a ban from all future employment with the FAO/World Food Programme, to include his name in the United Nations Clear Check screening database for perpetrators of sexual harassment, not to renew his short-term contract following a mandatory break in service, and to place a note in his personnel file confirming this.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  If it was open to the FAO/WPF to find the complainant guilty of the misconduct alleged, as it was, then what it decided to do in consequence involved the exercise of a discretionary power. It is not evident at all that the discretionary power miscarried when the FAO/WFP decided to ban the complainant from future employment and to place a note in his personnel file to this effect. Similarly, the discretionary power did not miscarry in relation to causing personal information identifying the complainant to be placed on the United Nations Clear Check screening database, which appears to have been created “to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment”. Many international organisations have a policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment and it is a legitimate mechanism, even if harsh, to meet that objective by creating a database designed to reveal individuals who have clearly been found to have engaged in such conduct.

  Keywords:

  decision-maker; disciplinary measure; discretion; personal data; personal file; sexual harassment;
  

  
  
  

• 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 8

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal recalls that disciplinary relations between an organization and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member ordinarily will not adversely affect other staff. Thus, a staff member ordinarily has no cause of action to challenge a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one on another staff member (see Judgment 4512, consideration 6, and the case law quoted therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4512
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; disciplinary measure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4943

  
  139th Session, 2025
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to summarily dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; flaw; fraud; internal appeals body; material damages; moral damages; motivation; negligence;
  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >