Judgment No. 3035
1. The decision of the Director General of 6 July 2009 is set aside.
2. WIPO shall pay the complainant compensation in the amount of 10,000 United States dollars to redress the injury suffered.
3. It shall also pay him 5,000 dollars in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant was suspended from duty on 4 September 2008.
"The Tribunal finds that, in maintaining the complainant's suspension by his decision of 6 July 2009, the Director General extended the duration of this suspension beyond the reasonable limit accepted by the case law and thus caused the complainant moral and professional injury."
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; injury; moral injury; professional injury; reasonable time; case law; breach; extension; suspension; executive head; cause; date
Staff Rule 10.1.2 provides that, “[w]hen a charge of serious misconduct is made against a staff member and if the Director General considers that the charge is well founded and that the staff member’s continuance in office pending the results of an investigation might be prejudicial to the service, the Director General may suspend the staff member from duty, with or without pay, until the end of the investigation, without prejudice to his rights”.
According to the Tribunal’s case law, suspension is an interim measure which need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 1927, under 5, and 2365, under 4(a)). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director General. It can therefore be reviewed by the Tribunal only on limited grounds and will be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 2698, under 9, and the case law cited therein).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2698
suspension; final decision