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

Judgment No. 4362

Decision

1. The impugned decision of the Prosecutor of 3 August 2018 dismissing the complainant is set aside.
2. The ICC shall pay the complainant 40,000 euros in material damages.
3. The ICC shall pay the complainant 15,000 euros in moral damages.
4. It shall also pay the complainant 8,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; summary dismissal

Considerations 7-8 and 10

Extract:

The relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 3863, consideration 11). Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence (see Judgment 3863, consideration 8).
The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
[...]
The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact, the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863

Keywords

misconduct; disciplinary measure; standard of proof; beyond reasonable doubt

Consideration 18

Extract:

Any breach of confidentiality by staff of an international court is an extremely serious matter. But there will be cases where the breach is grave and undoubtedly warrants summary dismissal and others where that outcome is not so obviously justified. It is possible that, had the matter been approached properly by the ICC, a decision would have been made not to dismiss the complainant. Equally a decision might have been made to dismiss her.

Keywords

termination of employment; breach of confidentiality



 
Last updated: 01.04.2021 ^ top