General principle (181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 900, 663, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 645, 209, 211, 664,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: General principle
Total judgments found: 223
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
Judgment 4671
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 9, 11-12
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that interest for late payment simply represents an objective form of compensation for the time that has elapsed since the date on which an amount was due, and the mere fact that there was a delay in the payment of that amount is sufficient to justify the payment of interest, whether or not the debtor was at fault (see Judgments 4093, consideration 8, and 1403, consideration 8).
Interpol’s argument that it was not negligent is therefore, in any event, irrelevant.
[...]
[A]s regards the absence of any provision in Interpol’s Staff Regulations or Rules providing for the payment of interest on sums due to the Organization’s officials, the Tribunal recalls that the requirement to pay such interest arises even without such a provision pursuant to the general principles governing the liability of international organisations.
It is appropriate, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, to apply the principle that interest is due ipso jure whenever a principal amount is payable, which is in particular the case where amounts have been wrongly deducted from remuneration that was due to be paid on a fixed date. In this scenario, the starting point for the interest to be paid is the due date for each payment from which an amount was wrongly deducted, that due date being equivalent by itself to service of notice (see, in particular, Judgments 3180, consideration 12, 2782, consideration 6, and 2076, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1403, 2076, 2782, 3180, 4093
Keywords:
general principle; interest on arrears;
Judgment 4670
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 20, 22-23
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that interest for late payment simply represents an objective form of compensation for the time that has elapsed since the date on which an amount was due, and the mere fact that there was a delay in the payment of that amount is sufficient to justify the payment of interest, whether or not the debtor was at fault (see Judgments 4093, consideration 8, and 1403, consideration 8). Interpol’s argument that it was not negligent is therefore, in any event, irrelevant.
[...]
[A]s regards the absence of any provision in Interpol’s Staff Regulations or Rules providing for the payment of interest on sums due to the Organization’s officials, the Tribunal recalls that the requirement to pay such interest arises even without such a provision pursuant to the general principles governing the liability of international organisations.
It is appropriate, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, to apply the principle that interest is due ipso jure whenever a principal amount is payable, which is in particular the case where amounts have been wrongly deducted from remuneration that was due to be paid on a fixed date. In this scenario, the starting point for the interest to be paid is the due date for each payment from which an amount was wrongly deducted, that due date being equivalent by itself to service of notice (see, in particular, Judgments 3180, consideration 12, 2782, consideration 6, and 2076, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1403, 2076, 2782, 3180, 4093
Keywords:
general principle; interest on arrears;
Judgment 4669
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 7, 9-11
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that interest for late payment simply represents an objective form of compensation for the time that has elapsed since the date on which an amount was due, and the mere fact that there was a delay in the payment of that amount is sufficient to justify the payment of interest, whether or not the debtor was at fault (see Judgments 4093, consideration 8, and 1403, consideration 8). Interpol’s argument that it was not negligent is therefore, in any event, irrelevant.
[...]
[A]s regards the absence of any provision in Interpol’s Staff Regulations or Rules providing for the payment of interest on sums due to the Organization’s officials, the Tribunal recalls that the requirement to pay such interest arises even without such a provision pursuant to the general principles governing the liability of international organisations.
It is appropriate, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, to apply the principle that interest is due ipso jure whenever a principal amount is payable, which is in particular the case where amounts have been wrongly deducted from remuneration that was due to be paid on a fixed date. In this scenario, the starting point for the interest to be paid is the due date for each payment from which an amount was wrongly deducted, that due date being equivalent by itself to service of notice (see, in particular, Judgments 3180, consideration 12, 2782, consideration 6, and 2076, consideration 10).
The complainant requests that the rate of interest payable be set at 10 per cent per annum. However, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from its usual practice of setting the rate of interest for late payment at 5 per cent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1403, 2076, 2782, 3180, 4093
Keywords:
general principle; interest on arrears;
Judgment 4668
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 18, 20-22
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that interest for late payment simply represents an objective form of compensation for the time that has elapsed since the date on which an amount was due, and the mere fact that there was a delay in the payment of that amount is sufficient to justify the payment of interest, whether or not the debtor was at fault (see Judgments 4093, consideration 8, and 1403, consideration 8). Interpol’s argument that it was not negligent is therefore, in any event, irrelevant.
[...]
[A]s regards the absence of any provision in Interpol’s Staff Regulations or Rules providing for the payment of interest on sums due to the Organization’s officials, the Tribunal recalls that the requirement to pay such interest arises even without such a provision pursuant to the general principles governing the liability of international organisations.
It is appropriate, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, to apply the principle that interest is due ipso jure whenever a principal amount is payable, which is in particular the case where amounts have been wrongly deducted from remuneration that was due to be paid on a fixed date. In this scenario, the starting point for the interest to be paid is the due date for each payment from which an amount was wrongly deducted, that due date being equivalent by itself to service of notice (see, in particular, Judgments 3180, consideration 12, 2782, consideration 6, and 2076, consideration 10).
The complainant requests that the rate of interest payable be set at 10 per cent per annum. However, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from its usual practice of setting the rate of interest for late payment at 5 per cent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1403, 2076, 2782, 3180, 4093
Keywords:
general principle; interest on arrears;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 19, 21-23
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that interest for late payment simply represents an objective form of compensation for the time that has elapsed since the date on which an amount was due, and the mere fact that there was a delay in the payment of that amount is sufficient to justify the payment of interest, whether or not the debtor was at fault (see Judgments 4093, consideration 8, and 1403, consideration 8). [...]
[A]s regards the absence of any provision in Interpol’s Staff Regulations or Rules providing for the payment of interest on sums due to the Organization’s officials, the Tribunal recalls that the requirement to pay such interest arises even without such a provision pursuant to the general principles governing the liability of international organisations.
It is appropriate, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, to apply the principle that interest is due ipso jure whenever a principal amount is payable, which is in particular the case where amounts have been wrongly deducted from remuneration that was due to be paid on a fixed date. In this scenario, the starting point for the interest to be paid is the due date for each payment from which an amount was wrongly deducted, that due date being equivalent by itself to service of notice (see, in particular, Judgments 3180, consideration 12, 2782, consideration 6, and 2076, consideration 10).
The complainants request that the rate of interest payable be set at 10 per cent per annum. However, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from its usual practice of setting the rate of interest for late payment at 5 per cent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1403, 2076, 2782, 3180, 4093
Keywords:
general principle; interest on arrears;
Judgment 4469
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which were allegedly unduly paid to him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]s an exception to the general principle of law that any sum paid in error may normally be recovered subject to the rules on time limits (see, for example, Judgment 4139, consideration 14, and the case law cited therein), where a Eurocontrol staff member receives an undue payment, such recovery is only possible if one of the two conditions specified is met: namely that the official concerned was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the overpayment was patently obvious.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4139
Keywords:
general principle; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4309
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his complaint of harassment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]here is a general principle of law that a person cannot simultaneously litigate the same issues in separate or concurrent proceedings (see Judgment 4085, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4085
Keywords:
general principle; parallel proceedings;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[The complainant's] allegations are [...] the subject of the complainant’s eighth complaint and will not be considered in this judgment by virtue of the general principle of law that a person cannot simultaneously litigate the same issues in separate or concurrent proceedings.
Keywords:
general principle; parallel proceedings;
Judgment 4241
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Regarding the applicable general principles, the Tribunal has stated that the question whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of. There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of these acts intended to engage in harassment, the main factor being the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him. The Tribunal’s case law has always recognised that an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (Judgment 4034, consideration 16). An unlawful decision or inappropriate behaviour is not enough to prove that harassment has occurred (Judgment 2861, consideration 37). The Tribunal has also held that behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question (Judgment 2370, consideration 17). It further stated that, on the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3996, consideration 7B).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2861, 3996, 4034
Keywords:
general principle; harassment;
Judgment 4086
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that when a staff member of an international organization is transferred to a new post in non-disciplinary circumstances, that transfer is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting the staff member’s status. The organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the staff member, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level as that which she or he performed in her or his previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see, for example, Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). This requirement is consistent with Staff Regulation 4.3(c) [...].
The responsibilities that attach to posts are comparable where on an objective basis the level of the duties to be performed is similar (see, for example, Judgment 1343, under 9). It is not for the Tribunal to reclassify a post or to redefine the duties attaching thereto, as that exercise falls within the discretion of the executive head of the organization, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post (see, for example, Judgment 2373, under 7). However, every employee has the right to a proper administrative position, which means that she or he should both hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto and should be given real work (see, for example, Judgment 2360, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 2229, 2360, 2373
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; general principle; grade; judicial review; organisation's duties; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; reclassification; respect for dignity; transfer;
Judgment 4062
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 8 and 12
Extract:
The evidence, and in particular the hearing before the Reports Board and deliberations of the Appeals Board, as presented in the
respective opinions of these two collegial bodies, shows that at the material time there were serious internal communication shortcomings in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, to which the complainant was assigned.
It appears, and the evidence also shows, that this situation was to a large extent due to the great number of responsibilities and particularly complex tasks that had been assigned to that Section. This had in fact prompted the complainant’s direct supervisor, on 20 March 2013, to report his superiors on the Section’s “[i]ntolerable workload”*in a memorandum especially intended for that purpose, in which he emphasised that the resulting working conditions were extremely difficult for himself and for all staff members concerned.
Such a working environment is clearly detrimental to the quality of staff performance and makes it particularly difficult, a fortiori, for employees who are not providing satisfactory services to improve the quality of their performance.
[...]
It follows from these provisions, which, moreover, merely state general principles that apply to any professional appraisal procedure, that particular circumstances such as a serious lack of communication between an employee and her/his supervisors, or extraordinary pressure on the service that an employee is working in, resulting from an unbearable collective workload, must be taken into account in assessing the performance of a staff member.
Keywords:
general principle; performance evaluation; work appraisal;
Judgment 3948
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The basic applicable principles where a decision not to renew a contract is challenged have been relevantly stated, for example, in Judgment 3586, considerations 6 and 10, as follows:
“6. It bears recalling at this juncture that the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).
[...]
10. It is firm principle that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1154, under 4).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3914
125th Session, 2018
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is convenient to re-state that the complainant held a fixed-term contract, albeit that it was subject to the Short-Term Staff Rules. The case law states that even where a staff rule or regulation provides that such a contract shall expire automatically and without prior notice on the given expiration date, that does not exempt an international organization from notifying a staff member of the non-renewal of her or his contract (see, for example, Judgment 675, under 9 to 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 675
Keywords:
fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Judgment 3911
125th Session, 2018
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 11
Extract:
In consideration 8 [of Judgment 1484], the Tribunal [...] reiterated the principle that an organization may not take action which affects a staff member’s status before she or he is heard. It stated as follows:
“Besides, according to general precepts of administrative law and the law of the international civil service an organization may not unilaterally take action that affects a staff member’s status before letting him have his say: Judgment 1082 […] affirmed that rule in 18: ‘By virtue of their contractual relationship and the trust that therefore prevails between them, an organisation owes its employee a duty to declare its intention of dismissing him and to let him plead his case.’
The same principle was set out in Judgments 1212 [...] under 2 to 4 and 1395 [...] under 6.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1082, 1212, 1395, 1484
Keywords:
general principle; right to reply; termination of employment;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[W]hile the right to a prior written warning may be conferred by an organization’s internal rules, the Tribunal has also stated that it may arise from a general principle of law based on the organization’s duty of good faith and duty of care to its staff members.
Keywords:
general principle; right to reply; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 3883
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of new salary scales as from March 2012 in Bangkok.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[A]n organisation is bound by the rules it has itself issued until it amends or repeals them (Judgment 963, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 963
Keywords:
due process; general principle; patere legem;
Judgment 3838
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for the non-renewal of any contract, and the official must be informed of that reason explicitly in a decision against which she or he can appeal. This principle also applies to the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment which, under the staff regulations or by agreement between the parties, ends automatically upon its expiry. This approach is justified by the fact that international organisations frequently resort to fixed-term contracts and the fact that the legitimate career expectations of those entering the service of these organisations would otherwise be denied.
It follows that an official who holds a fixed-term contract that automatically ends upon expiry must be informed of the true reasons for not renewing that contract and must receive reasonable notice thereof (see for example Judgments 1154, under 4, 1544, under 11, 1983, under 6, 3368, under 11, and 3582, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154, 1544, 1983, 3368, 3582
Keywords:
fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3758
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post.
Consideration 15
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 2170, under 14, “[a]n international organisation has a duty to comply with its own internal rules and to conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that these will be followed”. An organisation also has a duty to ensure that accurate information is provided to staff members. In turn, a staff member is entitled to rely on that information.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
duty to inform; general principle; patere legem;
Judgment 3339
118th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Employed on a part-time basis, the complainant seeks the payment of the additional hours he had been exceptionally required to work.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[T]he principle of lex specialis derogat generali [...] cannot be applied to laws which [...] are not at the same level of hierarchy."
Keywords:
general principle; precedence of rules;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
