Judgment No. 4658
Decision
1. The measure of suspension decided by the Secretary General of Interpol on 3 April 2018, and the various decisions to extend it adopted on 8 August, 11 October and 13 December 2018, as well as the decision of 6 February 2020 insofar as it concerned the complainant’s suspension, are set aside.
2. Interpol shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 5,000 euros.
3. The Organization shall pay him costs in the amount of 8,000 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his suspension with pay during disciplinary proceedings against him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; suspension
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, a measure of suspension decided in the context of disciplinary proceedings, with or without pay, is an interim measure which in no way prejudges the decision to be taken on the merits as to whether a disciplinary sanction should be imposed on the official concerned. However, since it imposes a constraint on the official, it must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of misconduct (see, in particular, Judgments 4519, consideration 2, 3035, consideration 10, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). Such a decision lies at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal and will not be set aside unless it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4586, consideration 8, 4519, consideration 2, 4452, consideration 7, 3037, consideration 9, 3035, consideration 10, 2698, consideration 9, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). In order to assess whether a measure of suspension is lawful, the Tribunal must determine whether the conditions required to take such a measure were met at the time it was ordered, all subsequent facts being irrelevant (see, in particular, Judgments 3036, consideration 13, 3035, consideration 12, and 2365, consideration 4(c)). Where a measure of suspension has been extended, the Tribunal must also determine whether the conditions for each extension decision were met at the time that decision was taken (see, in particular, Judgment 4586, consideration 10). Lastly, while an authority may adopt a measure of suspension if it considers, on the basis of the evidence before it and at its own discretion, that the charge of misconduct against an official is reasonable, there is no need at this stage to prove that the accusations are well founded (see, in particular, Judgments 3036, consideration 13, 3035, consideration 14(a), and 2698, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 2365, 2698, 3035, 3036, 3037, 4452, 4519, 4586
Keywords
suspension; judicial review
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal is of the view that the reasoning given for the suspension decision of 3 April 2018 is a generic formula which, in the absence of any other explanation, is meaningless. Accordingly, adequate reasons were not given for the decision [...].
Keywords
suspension; motivation
Consideration 6
Extract:
[P]recedent has it that any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 19, and 4108, consideration 3; see, concerning particularly the obligation to provide reasons for a measure of suspension, Judgment 4455, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4108, 4437, 4455
Keywords
suspension; motivation
Consideration 10
Extract:
[D]espite the conspicuous nature of some of the defects identified, there are no grounds to accept the complainant’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages. An award of such damages is only warranted in exceptional circumstances, which are not evident in this case.
Keywords
punitive damages; exemplary damages
|
