Aggravating circumstances (741,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Aggravating circumstances
Total judgments found: 3

• 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 19

  Extract:

  In his internal appeal, the complainant submitted that the measure of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate, primarily because in imposing it, WFP did not take into consideration his “long and distinguished service” with it. He also submitted that the measure had been imposed on an improper evidentiary basis, which he repeats before the Tribunal. The Appeals Committee concluded that the measure of dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the misconduct the complainant committed, with which conclusion the Director-General concurred in the impugned decision, noting that in imposing that measure, he had taken into account the complainant’s service but had decided that the imposition of a less severe measure was not warranted having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the public nature of the complainant’s actions and his position. The Tribunal is satisfied that this determination was open to the Director-General in the circumstances of the case and discerns no manifest error in that determination. It therefore rejects the complainant’s claim that the disciplinary measure of dismissal was not proportionate.

  Keywords:

  aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4779

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  According to 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, in particular, Judgments 4400, consideration 29, 3944, consideration 12, 3927, consideration 13, and 3640, consideration 29).
  In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the fraudulent acts referred to in consideration 15 above, although involving relatively modest amounts, constitute serious breaches of the duty of honesty incumbent on any member of the staff of an international organisation. In addition, the repeated failures by the complainant to honour private obligations were, as stated in consideration 13, liable to undermine the dignity of the status of international civil servant and tarnish the reputation of ITU. As correctly pointed out in the decision of 30 July 2021, the fact that the complainant worked in the Human Resources Management Department is an aggravating factor since it can normally be assumed that staff within that department will be particularly careful to observe the ethical standards expected of the organisation’s staff members. Lastly, although the personal difficulties referred to above might certainly be considered as a mitigating factor, the facts at issue would in any case be no less serious on that account.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4400
  

  Keywords:

  aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3872

  
  124th Session, 2017
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [T]he Director-General concluded that, as a security guard, the complainant should not have used the privileged access keys, with which he was entrusted to carry out his assigned duties, to unlock the storage room and take the wine which was the property of the Organization for his personal benefit. The Director-General agreed with the HBA that that action was a violation of trust and of the complainant's responsibilities, and that the fact that his sole responsibility was the protection of security and safety of WHO premises was an aggravating factor.

  Keywords:

  aggravating circumstances; misconduct;