Proportionality (210,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Proportionality
Total judgments found: 86
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4400
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.
Consideration 29
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3640, consideration 29, 3927, consideration 13, and 3944, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
Judgment 4351
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
That [the complainant] was a senior staff member who should have been setting a good example for others, can be considered an aggravating factor. The Tribunal finds that the disciplinary sanction imposed, was based on valid grounds and did not lack proportionality.
Keywords:
proportionality;
Judgment 4343
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote him by two grades as a disciplinary measure for harassment.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[W]hereas the Director General considered that the length of the complainant’s prior satisfactory service and unblemished record could, in principle, be mitigating factors, he concluded that these factors were outweighed by other factors, including the serious incidents of harassment which were complained of. He also considered it an aggravating factor that as a senior staff member the complainant was expected to act as a role model, and that he had failed to express remorse for the incidents at any time. The Tribunal finds that based on the foregoing, the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades, imposed by the Director General in the exercise of his discretionary authority, was not disproportionate.
Keywords:
demotion; disciplinary measure; proportionality;
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.
Consideration 13
Extract:
A question [...] arises as to whether that fraud alone was sufficient to warrant the sanction of summary dismissal. On this point, the complainant alleges that the principle of proportionality has been breached in that the sanction imposed is too severe in relation to the charges.
Regarding the severity of a sanction, the case law has it that “[t]he 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” (see, for example, Judgments 3640, under 29, 3944, under 12, 3953, under 14, 3971, under 17, and 4244, under 4).
The concurrent use of more than one official vehicle, which [...] has been established, constitutes a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. Article 12.7(1) of the Staff Regulations allows the sanction of summary dismissal to be applied to the staff member concerned in such a case.
The Tribunal hence finds that the sanction imposed on the complainant is not disproportionate in this case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3944, 3953, 3971, 4244
Keywords:
proportionality;
Judgment 4308
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 18
Extract:
As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3640, consideration 29, “[t]he 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.” The disciplinary measure of dismissal was not disproportionate, particularly having regard to the complainant’s alteration of the email of Ms D. This was a manifestation of dishonesty and fraud and it was open to WHO, as the disciplinary authority with a power to decide the disciplinary measure, to view the totality of the complainant’s conduct as misconduct warranting dismissal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality; termination of employment;
Judgment 4247
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for serious misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As to the complainant’s submissions concerning the proportionality of the decision to dismiss her, it must first be recalled, as stated in Judgment 3953, consideration 14, that:
“[A]ccording to a long line of precedent the decision-making authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction to be applied to a staff member whose misconduct has been established. However, as stated in Judgment 3640, under 29 and 31, that discretion must be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3953
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4244
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to relegate her by two salary steps.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Regarding the severity of the sanction, the Tribunal’s case law has it that “[t]he 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” (see, for example, Judgments 3971, consideration 17, 3953, consideration 14, 3944, consideration 12, and 3640, consideration 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3944, 3953, 3971
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4051
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that disciplinary decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to only limited review. In Judgment 3297, consideration 8, the Tribunal stated that it will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the fact findings of an investigative body unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, consideration 3). In disciplinary matters, the burden of proof lies with the employer, which must demonstrate that the complainant did indeed engage in the conduct of which he was accused (see, for example, Judgments 3297, consideration 8, and 3875, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3872, 3875
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; discretion; judicial review; proportionality;
Judgment 4050
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of relegation in step.
Considerations 22-23
Extract:
The complainant claims that his actions did not cause any identifiable prejudice. The Tribunal observes that the complainant obstructed the proper functioning of the system of internal remedies by his unjustified absence from the July session, his undermining of the Chairperson’s authority to take organizational decisions and his refusal to finalize the cases assigned to him which had been pending prior to the July session before leaving the IAC. The complainant does not acknowledge the negative impact of his uncooperative behaviour on the functioning of the IAC, which consequently adversely affected the interests of the other members of the IAC.
[...] The Tribunal finds that in [his] decisions [...] the President properly motivated his reasoning for deviating from the Disciplinary Committee’s recommendation of the sanction of relegation in step by one step. Furthermore, the [...] mitigating factors identified by the complainant are unconvincing. [T]he provisions were lawful, his absence was unjustified, his behaviour was intentional, and furthermore, his willingness to attend the September session was conditional. Taken as a whole, the complainant’s behaviour constituted misconduct, which was aggravated by the fact that he was an IAC member who would be expected to have a high level of respect for the rules, for confidentiality, and for the proper functioning of the appeal system. [T]he President maintained the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Committee (relegation in step), but after considering the severity of the misconduct, he concluded that relegation by three steps was justified. The Tribunal considers the contested sanction not to be disproportionate in light of the above considerations.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; proportionality;
Judgment 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The claim that the decision to downgrade the complainant violated the principle of proportionality is unfounded. Regarding the severity of the sanction, the case law has it that “[t]he 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” (see, for example,Judgment 3640, under 29). The complainant’s refusal to attend the IAC hearings and sessions was particularly onerous for the Organisation considering the heavy backlog of internal appeals that the IAC needed to confront. Keeping in mind that the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability. In the present case, the Tribunal finds that the sanction imposed is not disproportionate.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 3968
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of downgrading for serious misconduct, and the decision not to initiate an investigation into her allegations of institutional harassment.
Considerations 26 and 27
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes the complainant acted carelessly, with regard to a very sensitive subject, conscious of the probability that her statement would highly offend other staff members and would create great unrest among colleagues, damaging the work environment. The Tribunal observes the complainant’s actions were serious and wrong and cannot be justified by an alleged good purpose.
[T]aking into account the discretion enjoyed by the disciplinary authority and, in particular, the complainant’s refusal to apologize to Mr A. and the serious consequences of that behaviour on Mr A.’s health, the Tribunal finds that the contested disciplinary measure is not disproportionate and that the complainant’s twentieth complaint must also be dismissed (see Judgment 3640, under 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; misconduct; proportionality;
Judgment 3953
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading and to recover from her undue payments through monthly deductions from her salary.
Consideration 14
Extract:
Regarding the severity of the imposed sanction, the Tribunal recalls that, according to a long line of precedent the decision-making authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction to be applied to a staff member whose misconduct has been established. However, as stated in Judgment 3640, under 29 and 31, that discretion must be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality. In the present case, the complainant’s downgrading was not disproportionate to her misconduct. The complainant took financial advantage from the contested unlawful conduct with which she was charged and which was established. This is a serious breach of the duty of honesty incumbent on international civil servants and her state of health has no bearing on the merits of the impugned decision. In light of the above considerations, the complaint must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; downgrading; fraud; proportionality;
Judgment 3944
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 12
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 (see Judgment 3640, under 29). In this case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant engaged in repeated fraudulent practices over several months. In view of the serious nature of the acts committed by the complainant, his dismissal cannot be deemed disproportionate, notwithstanding the various factors which he puts forward for consideration. This plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; fraud; proportionality;
Judgment 3927
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.
Consideration 13
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” (see Judgment 3640, under 29). [...] Regardless of the situation, the complainant’s statements (not directed at Ms B. specifically but still referring to work colleagues) were beyond what is appropriate for an international civil servant and the Tribunal notes that her behaviour immediately following the incident was not “pro-active”. The complainant had gone to speak with Ms B. for other work-related matters, and only after realizing that Ms B. was upset and after being told by her that she had filed a complaint did the complainant apologize. Therefore the Tribunal finds that, in this case, it was not disproportionate for the Director General to impose the disciplinary measure of a three-month suspension without pay. In all the circumstances, and notwithstanding the conclusion that there was a procedural flaw, it is inappropriate to set aside the impugned decision and remit the matter to the UPU.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; proportionality;
Judgment 3703
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension by one month and the subsequent non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is true that, as the complainant submits, an advisory appeal body should not limit its power to review discretionary decisions in the same was as a judicial body would do (see Judgment 3125, under 12), but this was not what the Joint Committee did. The issue it had to resolve, having regard to the all the circumstances of the case, was that of the lawfulness of the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract. It might well have proposed a solution which it deemed to be more consonant with the principle of proportionality, but it was by no means obliged to do so, as it considered that the complainant’s criticism was unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3125
Keywords:
internal appeals body; proportionality;
Judgment 3649
122nd Session, 2016
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General of the IAEA to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
When viewed together, the complainant’s actions show a continuum of serious misconduct compounded by his lack of candor during the course of the investigation. In the circumstances, the sanction imposed was not disproportionate.
Keywords:
proportionality;
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.
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;
Judgment 3602
121st Session, 2016
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former employee of the WTO, contests the Director-General’s decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Considerations 25 and 27
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that in the particular circumstances the WTO had a duty of care towards the complainant that went beyond the mere statement that he had not established that his illness was responsible for his behaviour. That duty required the WTO to seek further medical advice concerning the complainant's medical condition that would have assisted it to have made a more informed assessment of a causal connection and consequential decision in the matter. This assessment should also have been weighed in determining proportionality. Having not done so, the impugned decision was unlawful [.]
[...]
[T]he impugned decision must be set aside to the extent that it found that summary dismissal was a proportionate sanction. The matter will be remitted to the WTO for reconsideration.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; disciplinary measure; medical fitness; proportionality;
Judgment 3295
116th Session, 2014
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; general principle; misconduct; official; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 50
Extract:
"[A]ccording to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207, 1984 and 2773, the disciplinary authority has a discretion to determine the severity of a disciplinary measure justified by a staff member's misconduct, provided that the measure adopted is not manifestly out of proportion to the offence. It cannot be alleged that termination of the complainant’s appointment, the disciplinary measure chosen, was manifestly out of proportion to the degree of seriousness of the acts listed above, notwithstanding the complainant’s length of service with UNESCO and her recognised professional abilities. The Tribunal therefore considers that, in taking this decision, the Director General did not exceed the limits of his discretionary authority."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984, 2773
Keywords:
case law; condition; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; misconduct; proportionality; summary dismissal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
