|
|
 |
|
|
Investigative body (906,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Investigative body
Total judgments found: 10
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;
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;
Consideration 19
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that in the instant case, WHO clearly took an excessive and unreasonable amount of time to initiate, perform and conclude the investigation, in violation of its own statutory requirements and in disregard of its general duty not to cause its staff members undue hardship.
This excessive delay was much more than a mere procedural flaw under the circumstances. It adversely impacted the complainant’s right to a full answer and defence, and it prejudiced the integrity of the investigation. Most of the evidence was difficult to obtain as a result, and the record indicates that it indeed led IOS to eventually give up on collecting it. By the time he was informed of the investigation, some three years after the alleged incident, it was too late for the complainant to find additional evidence or identify other potential witnesses. This ended up breaching the complainant’s right to due process.
Keywords:
delay; due process; investigation; investigation report; investigative body;
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 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s assessment of the investigation that had been undertaken by OIGI is that it was thorough and balanced. Its report was cogent and persuasive. It is not for the Tribunal to itself determine whether the conduct of the subject of the grievance has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there was evidence before the decision-maker which would justify such a decision by that decision-maker (see, for example, Judgment 3964, consideration 13). In this case there was. More generally, the Tribunal will accept findings of fact by investigative bodies, particularly when they have heard evidence from witnesses (as happened in this case) in the absence of manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3964, 4237
Keywords:
decision-maker; deference; discretion; internal appeals body; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
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:
As to the complainant’s contention that the FAO was not allowed to hire an external investigator for investigating into [an allegation of rape], the Tribunal reiterates that the investigation was administrative in character, and that nothing in the rules prevented the FAO from engaging external investigators. In the circumstances of the case, the hiring of external investigators was reasonable and appropriate, in light of the complexity and of the sensitivity of the case.
Keywords:
investigation; investigative body; 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 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent also has it that where there is an investigation by an investigative body prior to disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 4106, consideration 6, and 3593, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 4106
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4754
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 5
Extract:
It should be observed [...] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
“Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
Keywords:
deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; deference; harassment; investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Consideration 10
Extract:
It should be observed […] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
“Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
Keywords:
deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that [the Office of the Inspector General] conducted a thorough review of the voluminous documentation submitted by the complainant and a detailed analysis of her allegations. [The Office of the Inspector General]’s conclusion that the complainant’s harassment complaint should be closed was based on the results of its preliminary assessment that “there was no prima facie case of harassment, abuse of authority, retaliation or other misconduct”. In determining that the complaint should be closed for a lack of a prima facie case, [the Office of the Inspector General] acted within its authority and fully in line with the provisions of the [the Office of the Inspector General] Investigation Guidelines […].
Keywords:
investigation; investigative body; rules of the organisation;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As to the argument that the persons entrusted with the investigation are in a conflict of interest because they are subject to the hierarchical authority of the person accused of harassment (i.e. the Director-General), the Tribunal recalls its case law which states it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgment 4240, consideration 10). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). An allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden to prove a conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6). The mere fact that the staff members entrusted with an investigation are ordinarily under the authority of the Director- General is not a reasonable ground to call their impartiality into question. In the present case, there is no evidence that they had received any instructions from the Director-General (see Judgment 4243, consideration 9). The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence about the existence of a conflict of interest, which is merely hypothetical and not grounded on specific facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4243, 4616, 4617
Keywords:
conflict of interest; investigation; investigative body;
Judgment 1763
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15 and 17
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Director of the Division of Personnel [...] was both the chairman of the Disciplinary Board and the head of the department conducting the initial investigation. That the Director of the Division of Personnel should be chairman of the Board is required by paragraph 13(a) of section 13, Part II, of the Agency's Administrative Manual and does not constitute a procedural flaw, but does give rise to a situation in which there is a grave danger of an actual breach of procedural fairness. That is what in fact occurred. As the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, the Director had to refrain from personal involvement in the investigation. He must not be both judge and policeman. That, however, is what happened on at least one occasion. [...] This constitutes a serious breach of due process. [...] As chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board, the Director of the Division of Personnel had a duty to be and to appear to be impartial."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 13(A) OF SECTION 13, PART II, OF IAEA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest; disciplinary body; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; investigative body; procedural flaw;
|
|
|
|
|
