|
|
 |
|
|
Censure (508,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Censure
Total judgments found: 17
Judgment 3289
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant received a written censure for failing to comply with the procedure of authorizing outside activities and remuneration.
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[T]he contents of the written censure go beyond the findings of the JAB or are not compatible with those findings. Having accepted the recommendations of the JAB based on those findings, the written censure should have reflected, in a balanced way, those recommendations."
Keywords:
censure; judicial review; recommendation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; censure; complaint allowed; consultation; disciplinary measure; flaw; misconduct; outside activity; salary;
Judgment 2752
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
'The Tribunal will not interfere unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts.'
In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 2719
105th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Standing alone, the punishment of summary dismissal, as distinct from dismissal, might be thought to be disproportionate to the misconduct of which the complainant was guilty. However, he was twice warned in writing in 1998 to improve his poor attendance record. In the same year, he was informed that the complaints received 'with regard to [...] alleged financial manipulations, fraudulent activities, police and court cases' were causing embarrassment to the Organization and he was cautioned to 'extricate [him]self from these situations'. In 2002, he was found guilty of misconduct in relation to banking transactions and issued with a written reprimand. In the light of these matters, the punishment of summary dismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate."
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; warning;
Judgment 2494
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants were issued a reprimand on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and for abandoning their post in the course of their shift. "Considering Eurocontrol's special missions relating to the safety of air navigation, the right to strike - the lawfulness of which is not disputed - must not lead to sudden stoppages of activity such as occur when shift work is abandoned. The complainants do not deny the charges made against them in this respect. The Tribunal therefore considers that, while the first ground mentioned by the Agency - namely, participation in unlawful strike action - could not legally justify the contested disciplinary measure, this second ground did justify a penalty."
Keywords:
abandonment of post; acceptance; censure; disciplinary measure; enforcement; grounds; limits; right to strike; strike;
Judgment 2114
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"When the measure takes the form of a reprimand, the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. It will not interfere 'unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts'. (see Judgment 274, [...], under 2.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; conduct; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; duty of discretion; formal flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1608
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant had two obligations. First, he had to observe the hierarchical channels of communication if he wanted to refer a matter to the Organisation's decision-making bodies. Secondly, Article 17 of the Regulations required him to exercise discretion in the use of information that came to his knowledge in the course of duty. Since he acted in breach of both of those obligations the reprimand was fully justified."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 17 OF EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
censure; disciplinary measure; duty of discretion; proportionality; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 1599
82nd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Striking someone in the face at work is an act that WHO was justified in treating as misconduct, which Staff Rule 110.8.1 defines as 'any improper action by a staff member in his official capacity'. The Organization rightly took the view that such violence at the workplace was not to be tolerated. [...] The sanction of a written reprimand was not disproportionate to the misconduct that consisted in striking another staff member."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 110.8.1
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; misconduct; proportionality; staff member's duties; working relations;
Judgment 1381
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
"As to his suitability for the international civil service, the flow of documents between him and his supervisors on matters which could easily have been dealt with by discussion and dialogue shows a deterioration in his relationswith others at work, and for that he was at least partly to blame. The many notes for the record also indicate some lack of mutual respect and trust. He got a written reprimand [...] for ignoring normal channels of communication and for threatening to ask [his government] to make an official request to the organization, but even that did not deter him. His conduct fell below the standards expected of an international civil servant. The organization was justified in deciding not to renew the complainant's appointment."
Keywords:
censure; conduct; contract; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; serious misconduct; working relations;
Judgment 1028
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was issued a reprimand after putting down insulting remarks about his supervisors on his staff report. Article 47(1) of the EPO Service Regulations says that employees "shall be entitled to make any comments" they consider relevant on their staff report. But the Tribunal holds that "the freedom of speech that provision safeguards plainly affords no excuse for insult and libel." The choice of sanction is wholly warranted.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 47(1) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; freedom of speech; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 934
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant is mistaken in alleging breach of the principle of double jeopardy, since the grounds for the two reprimands were different.
Keywords:
censure; difference; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; grounds;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant invites the Tribunal to declare the two reprimands imposed on him void ab initio. The claim to have the first declared void is res judicata, the Tribunal having already dismissed it in its Judgment no. 801 because the decision had been previously withdrawn. As the second reprimand has also been withdrawn, the Tribunal dismisses the claim to have it declared void as well.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 801
Keywords:
application for quashing; cause of action; censure; no cause of action; res judicata; settlement out of court;
Judgment 885
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"The interests of both justice and sound administration demand that the organisation endure litigation: it is not for the organisation but for the Tribunal itself to determine whether the complainant has abused his right of appeal and, if so, what ruling is fitting in the circumstances. [The organisation] may [...] submit that [the complainant] has abused the right of appeal and invite the Tribunal not just to dismiss his complaint but to declare it vexatious and, where appropriate, take any further action it thinks fit. For the foregoing reasons the Tribunal holds that it was wrong to impose the reprimand on the complainant and it must be quashed."
Keywords:
censure; competence; disciplinary measure; judicial review; organisation; right of appeal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 846
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant contests the inclusion in his personal file of a note from the Vice-President of the Office which could be construed as a reprimand under the EPO Staff Regulations. Following the internal appeal, the Vice-President withdrew the offending note. The Tribunal holds that "the Vice-President's letter of 31 January was a mere expression of intent, it was not put into effect, and even supposing it was, the action was withdrawn, and the complainant has accordingly been given satisfaction."
Keywords:
application for quashing; cause of action; censure; disciplinary measure; no cause of action; settlement out of court; statement of intent;
Judgment 801
61st Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The invitation to the complainant to submit observations does not constitute a challengeable decision: the letter merely states the intention of imposing a reprimand."
Keywords:
cause of action; censure; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; statement of intent;
Judgment 511
49th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complaint, filed against a disciplinary measure (written censure), raised questions primarily of procedure. The Tribunal considered that, contrary to what the complainant maintained, the officers of the organisation rigorously complied with the procedural rules. It observed that the measure was imposed after the complainant had been invited to state her case, that her supervisors had not been remiss and that her right to a hearing had been respected. The complaint is dismissed.
Keywords:
censure; disciplinary measure; procedural flaw;
Judgment 410
44th Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal quashed the decision to reprimand the complainant because it was not based on a complete consideration of the facts. "The complainant asks for an order for compensation and costs. Since however the Tribunal considers that the complainant's conduct, whether or not deserving of a reprimand, was improper, such an order would not be appropriate."
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; no award of costs;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An incident of this sort between a P.6 officer and a regional director does not just explain itself [...]. It was essential for the Director-General to ascertain what explanation or excuse the complainant had to give. It cannot be said that it would inevitably have been unacceptable, since the [Appeals] Board, which characterised the complainant's conduct as 'not proper', none the less recommended that the reprimand should be withdrawn."
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was issued a reprimand without it being ascertained what explanation or excuse he might have to give. It is not possible to ignore the alleged misconduct of the Regional Director. "The Director-General must be allowed the widest possible discretion in deciding how to handle incidents of this sort. If he had decided against any formal disciplinary proceedings against either of the parties, his decision would have beyond criticism. But a decision to reprimand one party while leaving the case against the other unconsidered is open to question."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; censure; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 403
43rd Session, 1980
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Under the applicable provision, a formal warning is equated with a written reprimand, but is declared not to be a disciplinary measure. "The decision to warn is one over which the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review".
Keywords:
censure; disciplinary measure; judicial review; warning;
Judgment 274
36th Session, 1976
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
According to the organization, the memorandum in question signified the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But the memorandum was written "in the language of conclusions and not of allegations; it is impossible to argue that the writer of a letter which says that if the misconduct is repeated the offender may be dismissed, retains an open mind about whether or not misconduct had occurred. [...] The language of this memorandum disqualifies the Director-General from administering either a censure or a reprimand."
Keywords:
censure; consequence; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; reprimand;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"But whereas in the case of censure which is of a disciplinary nature the Tribunal exercises full power of review as to the facts and the law because of the protection which staff members of the organization should enjoy, when the measure takes the form of a reprimand which is not of a disciplinary nature the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. That is to say, the Tribunal will not interfere unless [...]."
Keywords:
censure; difference; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; reprimand; safeguard;
|
|
|
|
|
