ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Mitigating circumstances (393,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Mitigating circumstances
Total judgments found: 8

  • 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 13

    Extract:

    Regarding the question of the complainant’s health condition and the Disciplinary Committee’s failure to seek an expert medical opinion, the Tribunal notes that the Disciplinary Committee took account of the complainant’s state of health as a mitigating factor when deciding the proportionality of the recommended sanction.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; health reasons; mitigating circumstances;



  • Judgment 3106


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The law of defamation is not concerned solely with the question whether a statement is defamatory in the sense that it injures a person’s reputation or tarnishes his or her good name. It is also concerned with the question whether the statement was made in circumstances that afford a defence. Broadly speaking, the defences to a claim in defamation mark out the boundaries of permissible debate and discussion. As a general rule, a statement, even if defamatory in the sense indicated, will not result in liability in defamation if it was made in response to criticism by the person claiming to have been defamed or if it was made in the course of the discussion of a matter of legitimate interest to those to whom the statement was published and, in either case, the extent of the publication was reasonable in the circumstances."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; freedom of speech; liability; limits; mitigating circumstances; moral injury; publication; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2601


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 and 10

    Extract:

    "It is hard to deny the complainant's misconduct: acts of rudeness and violence are naturally unacceptable in the workplace, whether in an international organisation or any other institution. It is particularly unacceptable for a supervisor to come to blows with a staff member under his supervision, and to strike him in the face as he did in the present case. [...] it has not been established that [the complainant] merely defended himself from attack. As once again the Joint Advisory Committee found, 'even if [the complainant] was truly in a situation of self-defence, his reaction should have been proportionate to the assault. He should have tried to leave the premises without engaging in a fight and, if obliged to defend himself, he should merely have tried to bring his opponent under control without striking him to the point of causing him injury.'
    [...] the complainant could undoubtedly find mitigating circumstances in [his subordinate]'s attitude of insubordination, or even provocation, but that behaviour was in any case not such as to justify resorting to physical assault, which the defendant organisation could not tolerate on the part of a staff member entrusted with major responsibilities. The Tribunal in the circumstances is therefore unable to find that the sanction incurred by the complainant was clearly out of proportion (see Judgment 1725 for a similar situation)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1725

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2350


    97th Session, 2004
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The Administration accessed the complainant's computer while she was on sick leave. The Tribunal considers that "the events which occurred during the complainant's absence on sick leave were most unfortunate. However [...] it is understandable that, given the urgency attending the Sub-Committee meeting preparations on which the complainant was working, her computer was accessed. [The] matter could and should have been handled with greater sensitivity and with proper regard to the complainant's privacy. Even so, those events fall far short of establishing hostility amounting to harassment."

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; sick leave; working relations;



  • Judgment 1984


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant was dismissed for serious misconduct. He argues that the German criminal law would have taken into account mitigating circumstances, something the organisation failed to do. "Although under German criminal law these facts might remove or mitigate the penal nature that could attach to the offence of attempted fraud, when disciplinary sanctions are applied it is immaterial whether or not an act is criminal. Furthermore, the fact that the organisation in the end suffered no financial injury because it did not have to pay out money it did not owe, does not mean that the complainant's misconduct should not have been sanctioned."

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; domestic law; lack of injury; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; separation from service; serious misconduct; termination;



  • Judgment 1639


    83rd Session, 1997
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Director-General took the view that since the complainant admitted misconduct there was no need to give her any opportunity of defending herself. "The defendant's argument is mistaken. Before it notified to her the decision of summary dismissal it had brought no charges against her, and she therefore had no case to answer. And once it had made the decision to dismiss her without giving her a prior hearing, it had already acted in breach of due process. [...] An international organisation must inform the staff member of any charges it is levelling against him and give him the opportunity of answering before it takes any disciplinary action: audi alteram partem is a requirement it must observe in all circumstances. [...] Even though she had admitted to the incident, she did not on that account forfeit her right to be heard, be it to make a plea in mitigation or to give her own version of the facts or to raise any other issue she wished in her own defence."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary measure; duty to inform; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination;



  • Judgment 210


    30th Session, 1973
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    the tribunal holds that the four crucial representations were false; the complainant bore responsibility for the four misrepresentations and they could have had serious consequences for relations between the organization and the government, all of which constitutes misconduct. but the complainant's motives were not corrupt and his previous record was satisfactory. account should have been taken of attenuating circumstances. summary dismissal was out of all proportion to the degree of misbehaviour.

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; duty of discretion; fixed-term; misrepresentation; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    the question is whether the sanction imposed "gives adequate weight, not only to the nature of the misconduct taken by itself, but [also] to the extent to which in the circumstances of this case the complainant should be held to blame. in this connection there are mitigating factors which ... the director-general [does] not appear to have taken into account.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; termination;



  • Judgment 203


    30th Session, 1973
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "...the seriousness of the complainant's misconduct cannot be evaluated without taking into account the extenuating circumstances. ...the complainant did not appear to be unfit for employment [in the organisation], and therefore in discharging him the director did not observe the principle of proportionality."

    Keywords:

    mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; termination;


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top