Summary dismissal (512,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Summary dismissal
Total judgments found: 47

1, 2, 3 | next >

• 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.

  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: Le requérant conteste son renvoi sans préavis pour faute grave.

  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;
  

  Consideration 32

  Extract:

  La sanction de renvoi sans préavis infligée au requérant a par ailleurs causé à celui-ci un évident préjudice moral, en ce qu’elle portait, par elle-même, une grave atteinte à son honneur et à sa réputation. En revanche, si le requérant soutient que ce préjudice aurait en outre été aggravé par d’autres circonstances, il ne l’établit pas de manière pertinente aux yeux du Tribunal. En outre, le requérant n’établit pas non plus que la procédure de recours interne ait été en l’espèce d’une durée déraisonnable ou excessive.
  Dans ces conditions, le Tribunal estime qu’il sera fait une juste réparation du tort moral subi par le requérant en lui attribuant une somme de 30 000 euros.

  Keywords:

  injury; moral injury; summary dismissal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  beyond reasonable doubt; complaint allowed; serious misconduct; settlement out of court; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4815

  
  138th Session, 2024
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests his summary dismissal.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; discretion; proportionality; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4660

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4659

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4601

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him after an internal complaint of harassment was made against him.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; harassment; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4497

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; family allowance; misconduct; reinstatement; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4461

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4457

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him.

  Consideration 27

  Extract:

  The penalty of summary dismissal also caused the complainant obvious moral injury since it seriously damaged his honour and reputation of itself.

  Keywords:

  moral injury; summary dismissal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; summary dismissal;
  

  Consideration 26

  Extract:

  As regards material injury, the Tribunal observes that, from November 2016, the complainant was deprived of the remuneration he would ordinarily have received until the end of the contract in force at the time of his summary dismissal, which expired on 31 December 2017, and that he also lost a valuable opportunity to have his appointment subsequently renewed, given that his 26 years’ seniority with UNESCO meant that he could arguably have been expected to continue his career there until he retired.

  Keywords:

  material injury; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4456

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  World Tourism Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss her for misconduct.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  In one of the Tribunal’s earlier reported cases, Judgment 203 at consideration 2, the principle of proportionality was discussed in the context of the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal. The Tribunal noted that the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of discharge or summary dismissal could cause serious harm to the staff member and her or his family. The Tribunal observed that it was necessary for the penalty to be proportionate to the fault and that, in that case, the complainant’s misconduct could not be evaluated without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; proportionality; summary dismissal;
  

  Considerations 16-17

  Extract:

  The failure of the complainant to discharge her duties in the manner specified in the charges had to be viewed in the context of the chief executive officer of the Organization, Mr R., knowing mostly how those duties were being performed, approving of how those duties were being performed and, at least in some respects, having instructed the complainant to perform them.
  […] The failure of the Secretary-General to pay any regard to Mr R.’s evidence was a serious flaw in the decision to summarily dismiss the complainant. That decision should be set aside.

  Keywords:

  mitigating circumstances; proportionality; summary dismissal;
  

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  In its pleas, UNWTO did not come to grips with any of the specifics of the complainant’s claims for material damages. The amounts are potentially significant. It is desirable the Tribunal has the benefit of as full an account from the complainant as possible of the amounts claimed and their justification, and submissions from the Organization responding, in detail, to each element of the claim for material damages and the quantification of the amount claimed. An order will be made to facilitate this process.

  Keywords:

  material injury; summary dismissal;
  

  Consideration 21

  Extract:

  The complainant is entitled to moral damages for the undoubted trauma and associated distress arising from and associated with her unlawful summary dismissal after 27 years of service at UNWTO and the consequential need for her to relocate to Mexico.

  Keywords:

  moral injury; summary dismissal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4453

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  World Tourism Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; summary dismissal;
  

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  In one of the Tribunal’s earlier reported cases, Judgment 203 at consideration 2, the principle of proportionality was discussed in the context of the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal. The Tribunal noted that the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of discharge or summary dismissal could cause serious harm to the staff member and her or his family. The Tribunal observed that it was necessary for the penalty to be proportionate to the fault and that, in that case, the complainant’s misconduct could not be evaluated without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4444

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  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 on disciplinary grounds.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; summary dismissal;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  Given the preponderance of the evidence, including the complainant’s own admissions, the serious nature of his misconduct, as well as the fact that in March 2014 and prior to the commencement of the investigation in November 2014, the complainant was the subject of a written reprimand for improperly adding the spouse of a government official to a recruitment short-list, his contention that dismissal was a disproportionate measure is unfounded.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; proportionality; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4311

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4310

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The unlawfulness of the procedure which led to the complainant’s summary dismissal and its excessive length caused moral injury to the complainant, who was suspended without salary and remained uncertain as to his professional situation for an unacceptably long time.

  Keywords:

  moral injury; summary dismissal; suspension;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3757

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him summarily.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3640

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; en banc review; plenary judgment; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
  

  Considerations 29-31

  Extract:

  The disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area.
  In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the acts of sexual harassment of which the complainant was accused are undeniably serious on account of their nature and their repetition. Moreover, it is clear from the evidence in the file that their gravity is exacerbated by two particular circumstances which must be emphasised here. First, it appears from the investigation report, inter alia, that many of the persons subjected by the complainant to the unwelcome behaviour in question were young women who did not hold a permanent appointment and who were therefore in a precarious situation which made it difficult for them to protest, let alone report it, especially as the complainant often had the power to influence the progress of their career. Secondly, it is plain from the file that, [...] after protests from several of his colleagues, the complainant had received various warnings about the inappropriate nature of his conduct. Thus, even assuming that the complainant had not instinctively realised it, he could not thereafter have been unaware that his behaviour towards the women who had to work alongside him was perceived by them to be improper, offensive and extremely unpleasant. This did not, however, prevent him from repeating his reprehensible conduct on many occasions, since further incidents occurred [...].
  Having regard to these various considerations, and even though the complainant’s record of service with the Organization was otherwise excellent, the Tribunal finds that, in this case, the Director-General did not adopt a disproportionate disciplinary measure when she decided on the complainant’s summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; proportionality; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
  

1, 2, 3 | next >