Double jeopardy (186,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Double jeopardy
Total judgments found: 9

• Judgment 4817

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant’s fourth plea, alleging a breach of the double jeopardy rule, is unfounded. The double jeopardy rule precludes the imposition of further disciplinary measures for acts which have already attracted a disciplinary measure. The complainant has not been sanctioned twice, as the original disciplinary measures have been suspended and no new measures have been issued to date.

  Keywords:

  breach; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  As regards the plea of a breach of the double jeopardy principle, as already said, there is no such breach to date. If and when a new disciplinary measure is issued, only then will it be possible to establish whether the double jeopardy principle is infringed.

  Keywords:

  breach; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint allowed; deduction; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; investigation; manifest error; presumption of innocence; suspensive action;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  According to [...] the [...] Administrative Memorandum No. 985, harassment normally implies a series of incidents over a period of time, so it is not impossible for a harassment complaint to be based on relatively old events. That provision reflects the Tribunal’s case law, according to which, first, conduct over a period of time can inform the characterisation of particular conduct as harassment (see, in particular, Judgments 4288, consideration 3, and 4233, consideration 3) and, secondly, an accumulation of repeated events, as well as a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions, can be such as to have compromised the dignity and career objectives of a staff member (see, in particular, Judgment 4286, consideration 17). Indeed, harassment may involve a series of acts over time and can be the result of the cumulative effect of several manifestations of conduct which, taken in isolation, might not be viewed as harassment (see Judgment 4233, consideration 3, and the case law referred to therein), even if they were not challenged at the time (see Judgment 4253, consideration 5, and the judgments cited therein).
  It is therefore not in itself unusual that the [investigator] also took into account incidents of harassment which had already been reported in previously-lodged internal complaints [...]. The fact that the latter complaints did not lead to a full investigation being launched or, following such an investigation, to disciplinary proceedings being taken against the complainant, is irrelevant, since there was nothing to prevent the Organization from relying on those allegations of harassment, amongst other things, during the examination of a later complaint that reported new incidents. Equally irrelevant is the fact, relied on by the complainant, that none of the accusers behind those allegations complained at the time that the concrete measures decided on by the Organization were insufficient.
  The complainant’s reliance on a potential breach of the rule against double jeopardy is therefore not substantiated [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4233, 4253, 4286, 4288
  

  Keywords:

  double jeopardy; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• 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 28

  Extract:

  [A]s the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, the double jeopardy rule, which precludes only the imposition of further disciplinary sanctions for acts which have already attracted a disciplinary sanction, does not prevent both disciplinary and non-disciplinary consequences from attaching to the same acts. That rule does not therefore prevent the organisation concerned from taking measures of various kinds, each corresponding to its interests in a particular area, in response to the same act or conduct by an official (see, in particular, Judgments 3126, consideration 17, 3184, consideration 7, or 3725, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3126, 3184, 3725
  

  Keywords:

  double jeopardy;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4234

  
  129th Session, 2020
  International Office of Epizootics
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant rightly considers that the double jeopardy principle was breached. The measure of dismissal could not be based on conduct that had already been the subject of disciplinary measures [...].

  Keywords:

  double jeopardy;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4089

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The fourth argument is that the decision not to extend “amount[ed] to a violation of the principle of double jeopardy”. The complainant refers to Judgment 2861, consideration 50, in which the Tribunal said “a person [...] [cannot] be subject to two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions for the same conduct”. The short answer to this argument is that there was no adverse administrative decision concerning the complainant referable to the judgment of the Austrian court and what followed, before the decision not to extend her appointment was made. There were no two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions. This argument is unfounded and is rejected.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861
  

  Keywords:

  double jeopardy;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3126

  
  113th Session, 2012
  European Free Trade Association
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  "The rule against double jeopardy does not prevent disciplinary and non-disciplinary consequences attaching to the same acts or events. However, it does preclude the imposition of further disciplinary measures for acts or omissions that have already attracted a disciplinary sanction."

  Keywords:

  cause; consequence; definition; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; individual decision; organisation's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2861

  
  107th Session, 2009
  World Meteorological Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 50

  Extract:

  "It is fundamental that a person not be punished twice for the same conduct or, more precisely for present purposes, that he or she not be subject to two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions for the same conduct (see Judgment 934). As the complainant was subject to an adverse administrative decision, namely, a decision not to renew her contract on the basis of the matters relied upon in the [...] letter of 25 October 2006, it follows that the complainant's summary dismissal can be supported only on the basis of different conduct which, itself, amounted to serious misconduct or that, in some way, gave an added dimension to the conduct specified in the letter of 25 October so that it took on a more serious nature than previously was the case."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 934
  

  Keywords:

  decision; double jeopardy; non-renewal of contract; remand; serious misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 934

  
  65th Session, 1988
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Summary

  Extract:

  The complainant is mistaken in alleging breach of the principle of double jeopardy, since the grounds for the two reprimands were different.

  Keywords:

  censure; difference; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; grounds;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 354

  
  41st Session, 1978
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The fact that the original decision became final when it was not challenged within the prescribed time limit does not prevent the Tribunal from examining whether the decision not to extend the appointment "is not really a further disciplinary sanction based on the same facts, and on that account a mistake of law."

  Keywords:

  decision; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; misconduct;