Signature (862,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Signature
Total judgments found: 2

• Judgment 4659

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant argues that, in breach of Staff Rule 10.3.5(2), the opinion of the Joint Disciplinary Committee was not signed by its members.
  The Tribunal observes that the consultative opinion of the Joint Disciplinary Committee officially filed by the Organization has not been signed, nor does it indicate the date on which it was delivered. When questioned on this point, Interpol acknowledged that the consultative opinion had not been signed but confirmed that the opinion “was sent by email [...] by one of the members of the Committee with a copy to the Chairman and the other members of the Committee”, and it produced a copy of the email to which the opinion had been attached.
  The Tribunal points out that Staff Rule 10.3.5(2) provides expressly that “[t]he Chairman of the relevant Joint Committee shall sign the consultative opinion”. It is plain that this formality was not observed, and Interpol’s explanations clearly do not change that fact. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that the failure to comply with this requirement, the purpose of which is to guarantee the authenticity of the Committee’s opinion, constitutes a substantial flaw. That finding particularly applies to disciplinary proceedings.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary body; disciplinary procedure; signature;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4210

  
  129th Session, 2020
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The fourth argument is that there had been procedural irregularities attending the ABCC’s consideration of his case on 24 May 2017 and 11 December 2017. This is founded on the fact that all members of the ABCC did not sign the minutes of the May and December 2017 meetings. The complainant does not point to any case law or staff rule or regulation that requires all members to sign. Moreover the mere fact that all members did not sign does not even arguably sustain an inference that the decisions actually made were not unanimous (see, for example, Judgments 1763, consideration 13, and 810, consideration 2).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1763
  

  Keywords:

  formal flaw; formal requirements; internal appeals body; report; signature;