Judgment No. 4598
Decision
1. The impugned decision of 7 July 2020 is set aside, as is the earlier decision of the Regional Director of 18 June 2019.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant material damages in an amount equal to all salaries and emoluments the complainant would have received if the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade had not been imposed on her.
3. WHO shall pay the complainant 8,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade for her failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of staff members.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; downgrading; disciplinary measure
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A] mere declaration […] that [the Director-General] was satisfied of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt without explaining why, involves a failure to motivate a conclusion at odds with the conclusion of the internal appeals body. This failure, alone, would justify the setting aside of the impugned decision (see Judgments 4400, consideration 10, 4062, consideration 3, and 3969, considerations 10 and 16). What, at a minimum, the Director-General needed to have done was explain why the analysis of the GBA […] was flawed, or did not sustain the ultimate conclusion of the GBA, or both. He did neither.
Keywords
impugned decision; standard of proof; motivation of final decision
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Director-General endorsed the conclusions of IOS […] notwithstanding it simply said, “there is sufficient evidence”. There is an obvious tension, if not inconsistency, between endorsing a conclusion based on findings of fact about misconduct on the basis of sufficient evidence and a declaration that the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are several judgments of the Tribunal deprecating reliance simply on the sufficiency of evidence as establishing misconduct in disciplinary proceedings. One illustration is found in Judgment 3880, consideration 9 […]
[I]t can be inferred, in this case, that the mere declaration of the Director-General that the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt did not reflect a genuine and considered evaluation of the evidence, and an assessment of it by reference to the applicable standard of proof.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3880
Keywords
disciplinary measure; standard of proof; motivation of final decision
Consideration 14
Extract:
The import of some of the pleas of WHO was that the Tribunal should, itself, determine whether the complainant’s conduct constituted misconduct. This is not the Tribunal’s role (see Judgments 4491, consideration 19, 4362, consideration 7, and 3831, consideration 28).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831, 4362, 4491
Keywords
competence of tribunal; misconduct; disciplinary measure
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant seeks other relief, namely that the Tribunal declare Ms M.’s harassment complaint as frivolous and cancel the IOS report. This is relief the Tribunal cannot grant even if grounds for granting that relief were made out.
Keywords
competence of tribunal; relief claimed
| 
