|
|
 |
|
|
Request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings (878,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings
Total judgments found: 14
Judgment 4607
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegation that the opening of an investigation against her involved abuse of authority and the decision not to investigate her allegations against the Acting Director of the Internal Oversight Division.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[The complainant] has no enforceable legal interest in the fate of her allegation of misconduct against the Acting Director IOD which can be vindicated by orders of the Tribunal. The subject matter, namely the decision not to open an investigation on the alleged misconduct and abuse of authority by the Acting Director IOD, does not concern non-observance of the terms of her appointment or relevant non-observance of provisions of the Staff Regulations, as provided for in Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute (see Judgment 4145, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4145
Keywords:
cause of action; investigation; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 20
Extract:
It should be noted [...] that the request for an investigation to be ordered with a view to the possible imposition of disciplinary penalties on particular staff members lies outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whose role is not, in any event, to issue orders of that kind (see, for example, Judgments 4439, consideration 4, 4291, consideration 10, or 3858, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3858, 4291, 4439
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4512
134th Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his grievance complaint against Mr H. and to close the case.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1899, in consideration 3, “[d]isciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one.” Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Tribunal’s consistent case law has it that ordering that disciplinary action be taken against an alleged harasser is, in any event, outside its jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 4313, consideration 11, 4241, consideration 4, 3318, consideration 12, and 2811, consideration 15). The Tribunal finds that the complainant’s allegations and claims based on the ICC’s failure to impose disciplinary measures against Mr H. are irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4313
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order an organisation to take disciplinary action against an official (see Judgment 4241, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order to impose disciplinary sanctions; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4439
132nd Session, 2021
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4313
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, challenges the decision to dismiss her harassment grievance.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant requests the Tribunal to order that disciplinary action be taken against the officials whom she accuses of harassment. In addition to the fact that in this case harassment could not be established, the Tribunal points out that such a request is, in any event, outside its jurisdiction (see Judgment 3318, under 12, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3318
Keywords:
request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4304
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General to cancel the “Falls Below Expectations” overall rating in her 2014 performance appraisal report and to restore her entitlements as in the case of satisfactory performance, but not to award her damages or costs.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]n the complainant’s claims for relief she asks the Tribunal to re-rate itself her 2014 PMDS report as satisfactory; to recommend that sanctions be taken against her supervisors for their mismanagement of the performance appraisal procedure; and to “demand” a new investigation into her supervisor’s behaviour toward her. The Tribunal has no power to make such orders and the complainant’s claims in relation to these matters must be dismissed.
Keywords:
request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In his claims for relief, the complainant asks the Tribunal to order a number of measures which are either unrelated to the present complaint or beyond the Tribunal’s competence, namely, that the Tribunal should order the UPU to: initiate disciplinary action against UPU officials; re-credit the complainant with previously deducted sick leave, salary, home leave and other emoluments; commence a reclassification review of the complainant’s post; revise the complainant’s job description and grade; and allow the complainant “to work permanently from home at a percentage mutually agreed upon by him and his treating physician”. Those claims will not be considered.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4241
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] seeks an order that her harasser(s) be subjected to disciplinary sanctions for misconduct. The request is rejected as the imposition of such a measure lies outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 3318, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3318
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; ratione materiae; relief claimed; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In his original request [...], the complainant asked for an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information, and requested the Administrative Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved in the aforementioned unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information. The Tribunal finds the complaint to be irreceivable on two different but related grounds, both of which are decisive. On the one hand, the complainant has no right to request the initiation of an investigation and presumably of disciplinary proceedings against another staff member, and the EPO has no duty to reply to such a request. That is because the complainant has no cause of action, since he would be entitled to file a complaint with the Tribunal only on the basis of his personal employment relationship with the EPO by challenging measures which concern him personally on account of his status as an EPO permanent employee. The complainant is challenging the Administrative Council’s refusal to take measures that do not concern him personally and which would only serve to defend the general interests of the Organisation, such as good administration, efficiency and impartiality (see Judgments 3427, under 33, 2387, under 3, and 1899, under 3). As the EPO noted in its reply, the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1899, under 3, that “[d]isciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one.”
Keywords:
request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 3318
117th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision of the Director-General to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he claim for disciplinary measures against one of the supervisors implicated in the complaint cannot be granted. Indeed, such a request is, in any event, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. (See Judgments 2811, under 15, or 2636, under 13.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 2811
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 2811
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Some of [the complainant's] requests clearly lie outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This is true, for example, of the requests that the Tribunal order the imposition of disciplinary measures on staff members of the Organization, that the complainant be sent a public letter of apology [...] or that a management audit of her department be conducted by independent experts. This is also true of the request that the Tribunal order the Organization to take steps to ensure that the complainant's immediate supervisor will no longer supervise her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 968, 1591, 2605
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; receivability of the complaint; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; supervisor;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he four persons with respect to whom the complainant seeks the imposition of sanctions have filed applications to intervene in these proceedings and, in the alternative, seek to have their applications treated as complaints. These applications must be refused. So far as concerns the applications to intervene, none of the applicants is in the same position in fact or law as the complainant (see Judgment 2237)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2237
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; difference; disciplinary measure; intervention; refusal; request by a party; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; right;
Judgment 1899
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Disciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one."
Keywords:
cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; official; other; refusal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
|
|
|
|
|
