Judgment No. 4373
Decision
1. The impugned decision of 12 June 2018 is set aside.
2. The OPCW shall pay the complainant 10,000 euros in moral damages.
3. It shall pay the complainant 8,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; motivation; motivation of final decision
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant raised in the internal appeal the issue of his intention and mens rea. He challenges the adequacy of the reasons of the Director-General in deciding to censure him. […] In the Tribunal’s view, it is an important issue generally and certainly important in this matter. It is not a topic addressed in the report of the Appeals Council whose reasoning is extremely brief and not at all detailed. In substance, the complainant was deprived of his right to an effective internal appeal (see Judgment 4063, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4063
Keywords
right of appeal
Consideration 10
Extract:
A final decision maker can refer to other documents which, when taken together with such reasons for decision as are given by the decision maker, can constitute the reasons for decision (see, for example, Judgment 4081, consideration 5). But the Tribunal’s approach is influenced by the circumstances and the nature of the decision (see Judgment 2927, consideration 7), and the Tribunal does not recognise the aggregation of reasons from multiple sources is appropriate in relation to disciplinary decisions (see Judgment 2112, consideration 5). The Director-General did not adequately motivate his decision to censure the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned decision […] should be set aside.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2112, 2927, 4081
Keywords
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision
Consideration 12
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the staff member’s status (see Judgments 4039, consideration 3, 4038, consideration 3, 3236, consideration 12, and 2364, considerations 3 and 4).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2364, 3236, 4038, 4039
Keywords
misconduct; investigation; opening of an investigation
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that there are no grounds for awarding costs in respect of the internal appeal proceedings, since such costs may only be awarded under exceptional circumstances, which do not exist in the present case.
Keywords
costs for internal appeal procedure
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant has requested a letter from the Director-General apologizing and clearing him of all charges. However, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, it is not competent to make orders of this kind (see, for example, Judgments 3069, consideration 5, and 4215, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3069, 4215
Keywords
competence of tribunal; apology
| 
