|
|
 |
|
|
Beyond reasonable doubt (923,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Beyond reasonable doubt
Total judgments found: 19
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.
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
« Il ressort des dispositions [applicables à Eurocontrol] que, contrairement à ce que fait valoir la défenderesse, toute enquête administrative doit être menée par le Comité d’examen […] la conduite de l’enquête administrative par le Comité d’examen offrait des garanties d’impartialité supplémentaires […] En confiant l’enquête […] au seul responsable de la sécurité, Eurocontrol a privé l’intéressé de son droit à une procédure régulière et des garanties procédurales prévues par ses propres règles. Il y a donc lieu de conclure à l’irrégularité de l’enquête administrative conduite dans la présente affaire […] la décision [attaquée] ainsi que les décisions de rétrogradation […], doivent être annulées […] Cependant, le Tribunal ne fera pas droit aux demandes en réparation du préjudice matériel que le requérant estime avoir subi du fait de sa rétrogradation. En effet, l’intéressé a lui-même reconnu avoir falsifié la date de la prescription médicale, soumise à l’appui de sa demande de remboursement de frais médicaux […] le Tribunal estime que le Directeur général pouvait conclure au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que le requérant s’était rendu coupable de tentative de fraude et qu’une enquête administrative menée par le Comité d’examen n’aurait pas pu, en tout état de cause, avoir d’incidence sur cette conclusion […] Le non-respect par Eurocontrol des garanties procédurales prévues par ses propres règles a néanmoins causé au requérant un préjudice moral.»
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; fraud; interpretation; interpretation of rules; investigation; material injury; moral injury;
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 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;
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 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 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 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 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 9
Extract:
[I]t is appropriate to recall the scope of the Tribunal’s review in disciplinary matters and the standard of evidence required for disciplinary convictions. The Tribunal shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error […]. 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 […]. 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 review the evidence and to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion […]. Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; discretion; investigation; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
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 keywords
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; complaint dismissed; freedom of association; freedom of speech; summary dismissal;
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;
Consideration 16
Extract:
En deuxième lieu, en ce qui concerne le manquement allégué à l’obligation de confidentialité, soit celui qu’a initialement invoqué l’organisation en notifiant verbalement au requérant sa suspension le 11 octobre 2021, le Tribunal relève que la CPI n’a pas été en mesure d’établir la nature confidentielle de l’information dont l’intéressé aurait eu connaissance et dont il aurait communiqué la teneur aux deux représentants externes de la délégation d’un État membre en affirmant prétendument, tel qu’allégué par M. D., que «le dossier contre [l’agence de services secrets d’une grande puissance] est prêt; tout est là».
Or, pour établir la violation d’une obligation de confidentialité, encore faut-il établir la connaissance d’une information confidentielle protégée et la communication illicite d’une telle information. D’abord, une information qui fait dorénavant partie du domaine public n’est plus, par sa nature, confidentielle. Ensuite, dans son argumentation sur ce point, l’organisation confond la violation de ce qui serait autrement une obligation de confidentialité et la violation de ce qu’elle qualifie par ailleurs parfois d’obligation de réserve d’un fonctionnaire.
En l’espèce, au sujet des affirmations qu’aurait faites le requérant sur la situation dans le [pays X], les écritures et les pièces du dossier établissent que l’intéressé avait nié plus d’une fois, dont la première fois dès la rencontre avec le Procureur du 15 octobre 2021, avoir utilisé les mots qui lui ont été attribués par M. D. En outre, un des deux représentants de la délégation de l’État membre en question avait fait un témoignage qui semblait corroborer les dires de l’intéressé à ce sujet. Or, malgré cela, le Procureur a fait l’analyse de cette preuve en plaçant l’accent sur le poids et la valeur probante à conférer aux preuves contradictoires présentées, ce qui correspond à une analyse axée sur la prépondérance de la preuve, plutôt que de considérer si un doute raisonnable pouvait naître au regard de la culpabilité potentielle du requérant quant à ce manquement compte tenu de ces contradictions. Ce faisant, le Procureur a méconnu la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal selon laquelle, en matière disciplinaire, le bénéfice du doute doit toujours profiter au fonctionnaire. Ainsi, dans le jugement 4697, au considérant 22, le Tribunal a souligné ce qui suit à ce sujet:
«Dans le jugement 4491, au considérant 19, le Tribunal a rappelé que “[l]e fonctionnaire accusé d’avoir commis une faute bénéficie de la présomption de non-culpabilité et le doute doit lui profiter”. De même, dans le jugement 3969, au considérant 16, le Tribunal a souligné que, lorsque le chef exécutif d’une organisation cherche à motiver ses conclusions et sa décision de s’écarter de celle d’un comité de discipline, il doit établir au-delà de tout doute raisonnable la conduite ou le comportement reproché à un requérant.»
Le Tribunal considère que, en l’espèce, devant cette preuve contradictoire et la teneur du rapport du Comité consultatif de discipline sur ce manquement allégué, le Procureur devait expliquer pourquoi il estimait que les versions divergentes des personnes ayant assisté à l’échange du 11 octobre 2021 ne soulevaient pas de doute raisonnable quant à la preuve de ce manquement, ce qu’il n’a pas fait dans son analyse. Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a rappelé dans le jugement 4360, au considérant 14, une organisation internationale se doit d’examiner les éléments de preuve qui peuvent être considérés comme étant à décharge pour le fonctionnaire accusé de faute. Cela implique nécessairement d’expliquer pourquoi, le cas échéant, ces éléments de preuve ne soulèvent pas un doute raisonnable contrairement à ce qu’a pu considérer le comité de discipline interne, ainsi que ce fut le cas dans la présente affaire.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969, 4360, 4491, 4697
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; confidentiality; evidence;
Judgment 4934
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It may be accepted that the expression “[existing] set of precise and concurring presumptions” can be viewed as a circumstance, in appropriate contexts, which leads to establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is illustrated, for example, in Judgment 3875, consideration 8, in which the Tribunal said:
“In disciplinary matters, the burden of proof lies with the employer, which must demonstrate that the employee did indeed engage in the conduct of which she or he is accused. If the facts are disputed and there is no persuasive material evidence, the facts of the dispute may be appraised on the basis of conclusive circumstantial evidence. Thus, the facts may be held to be established when a set of precise presumptions and concurring circumstantial evidence enable the decision-making authority to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the person concerned is guilty.”
It was said in Judgment 3757, consideration 6, that:
“[...] a set of precise and concurring presumptions removing any reasonable doubt that the acts in question actually took place”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3757, 3875
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; serious misconduct;
Consideration 8
Extract:
There are judgments in which the failure of a decision maker to expressly identify the standard of proof has led the Tribunal to consider the decision regarding misconduct unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 4633, considerations 9 to 11, and 4360, consideration 12). Whether the contention, in this case, that the standard of beyond reasonable doubt was not identified and applied, was correct is an entirely different matter. The JARB could probably have dealt with this issue in a relatively short compass, but it did not at all. In the result, there was, as the complainant contends, a violation of his right to an effective internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4360, 4633
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; serious misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; complaint allowed; serious misconduct; settlement out of court; summary dismissal;
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:
As this complaint challenges a disciplinary decision, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law, that the burden of proof in such cases rests on an organization to prove the underlying allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; standard of proof;
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In disciplinary matters, the Tribunal has consistently found 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. In respect of the standard of proof, the Tribunal relevantly stated the following in Judgment 4362, considerations 7, 8 and 10:
“7. [...] The relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present 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, Judgment 3863, consideration 11). 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).
8. The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed, it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the ‘criminal’ standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the ‘civil’ standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
[...]
10. [...] The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact, the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863, 4362
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof;
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 12
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law [...] establishes that, in disciplinary matters, the official’s right to due process means that an organisation has an obligation to prove the misconduct complained of beyond reasonable doubt. This serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service and involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the official concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4478, consideration 10, 4362, considerations 7, 8 and 10, and 4360, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4360, 4362, 4478
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof;
Consideration 23
Extract:
In light of these factors, the Tribunal considers that it was not possible for the Director General to depart from the unanimous opinions of the Disciplinary Board and the Joint Committee for Disputes in the way he did. The grounds he gave in the contested decisions do not meet the standard of a clear and cogent demonstration of the Organisation’s ability to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was guilty.
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; motivation; standard of proof;
Consideration 21
Extract:
[A]ccording to the settled case law of the Tribunal, the level of proof to which the Organisation is subject in disciplinary matters is proof beyond reasonable doubt (see, for example, Judgments 4478, consideration 10, and 4247, considerations 11 and 12) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4247, 4478
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; standard of proof;
Judgment 4674
136th Session, 2023
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
A difficulty with this approach of the Board is that while it may be true, based on its findings, that the complainant should have known, and possibly inferentially did know, “some” of her conduct was harassment, the Board made no finding that this was true of all the conduct charged against her as misconduct and proven to its satisfaction. This is not a case where each alleged act of misconduct was identified, separately, as warranting the sanction of dismissal. It was the aggregation of conduct “creating a hostile work environment over an extended period of time” which underlay the decision to dismiss. Additionally, one instance where the complainant had caused staff to cry occurred within two years of the complaint against her being lodged by the Staff Association in September 2016. Her complaint about lack of warning was directed to events over the entire preceding nine years comprehended by the charges, which events occurred, in the main, before 2014.
In the impugned decision, the Director effectively repeated this flawed analysis of the Board though, significantly, omitted the word “some” (referred to earlier) in saying that “the Board found that your conduct was ‘so clearly out of bounds that [you] could not help but know that it was improper’”. As just discussed, no such compendious finding was made by the Board in relation to all the conduct relied upon by the Director in confirming the dismissal of the complainant by rejecting her appeal. This material flaw in the analysis by the Director was compounded by her saying that the complainant’s assertion that the Director of Administration and the HRM Director “tolerated” her conduct did not provide the complainant with a defence when her actions were so obviously a violation of the Harassment Policy. This comment is not motivated save to the extent that it involved a purported adoption of what the Board had concluded. No such general conclusion had been reached by the Board […].
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; final decision; misconduct; motivation;
Judgment 4491
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for serious misconduct.
Consideration 19
Extract:
The case law of the Tribunal in a situation such as the present is clear. A staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgment 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof of allegations of misconduct falls on the organisation and it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (see, for example, Judgment 4364, consideration 10). In reviewing a decision to sanction a staff member for misconduct, the Tribunal will not ordinarily engage in the determination of whether the burden of proof has been met but rather will assess whether a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see, for example, Judgment 4362, considerations 7 to 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4362, 4364
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; presumption of innocence; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Consideration 20
Extract:
[T]here has been a clear reluctance, or indeed refusal, to accept what the complainant said was true. Obviously, a person who is guilty of fraud may well often lie and contrive false facts to avoid the consequences of their fraudulent conduct. Equally obviously, an organisation must be alive to this possibility when investigating and dealing with conduct of a member of staff believed or suspected of being fraudulent. But in the present case, proof of the hypothesis that the complainant’s narrative and explanation were false and she acted fraudulently involved an unfair and distorted analysis of the facts. The Tribunal is satisfied a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the charge alleged could not properly have been made.
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary procedure; evidence; fraud;
Judgment 4478
133rd Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of delayed advancement to the next salary step for a period of 20 months, pursuant to Staff Rule 10.1.1.
Consideration 10
Extract:
As to the issue of the standard of proof, the complainant submits, in his fifth plea, that WIPO erred in applying the “clear and convincing” standard of proof. He adds that due to its failure to meet its prima facie obligation to prove the complainant’s misconduct beyond reasonable doubt, WIPO violated the complainant’s rights to due process and equal treatment. It is true that the Tribunal clearly stated that the applicable standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (see, for example, Judgment 3649, under 14, and Judgment 4247, under 11-12). But the standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service, as stated in Judgment 4360, consideration 10, and Judgment 4362, considerations 7, 8 and 10:
“Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the ‘criminal’ standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the ‘civil’ standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities.”
The Tribunal notes that Staff Rule 10.1.2(d) of WIPO provides that the applicable standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is “clear and convincing evidence”. In the present case, it is clear that the facts underlying charge of misconduct are uncontroverted. The reference by the Director General to the “clear and convincing evidence” standard does not detract from the fact that, in substance, the standard of beyond reasonable doubt was met.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 4247, 4362
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof;
Judgment 4364
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In Judgment 4227, consideration 6, the Tribunal said: “The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, was summarised in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, 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, Judgment 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled that the ‘Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).” Also, in Judgment 4247, consideration 12, in response to a similar argument made by the complainant in that case, the Tribunal said: “It is clear that the facts underlying the charge of misconduct are uncontroverted. The reference by the Director General to the ‘clear and convincing evidence standard’ does not detract from the fact that, in substance, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt was met. As the assertion that [the Organization] failed to prove the complainant’s misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt is unfounded, it is rejected.” In the present case, even though the Disciplinary Committee did not expressly use the term “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s misconduct was in fact proven to that standard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3862, 4227, 4247
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; misconduct; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
It has been clearly established in the Tribunal’s case law that misconduct must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 12, 4227, consideration 6, and 4106, consideration 11, as well as the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4106, 4227, 4247
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 4362
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Considerations 7-8 and 10
Extract:
The relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present 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, Judgment 3863, consideration 11). 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).
The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
[...]
The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact, the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 4360
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
[...]
The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 4011
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the Tribunal’s view, the material contradictions in their evidence required providing the complainant with an opportunity to challenge Ms E.L.’s statements. The failure to provide that opportunity at any stage of the disciplinary proceedings breached the complainant’s due process rights. Accordingly, these charges could not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 3882, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3882
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; due process;
|
|
|
|
|
