Aggravating circumstances (741,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Aggravating circumstances
Total judgments found: 2

• Judgment 4779

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, in particular, Judgments 4400, consideration 29, 3944, consideration 12, 3927, consideration 13, and 3640, consideration 29).
  In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the fraudulent acts referred to in consideration 15 above, although involving relatively modest amounts, constitute serious breaches of the duty of honesty incumbent on any member of the staff of an international organisation. In addition, the repeated failures by the complainant to honour private obligations were, as stated in consideration 13, liable to undermine the dignity of the status of international civil servant and tarnish the reputation of ITU. As correctly pointed out in the decision of 30 July 2021, the fact that the complainant worked in the Human Resources Management Department is an aggravating factor since it can normally be assumed that staff within that department will be particularly careful to observe the ethical standards expected of the organisation’s staff members. Lastly, although the personal difficulties referred to above might certainly be considered as a mitigating factor, the facts at issue would in any case be no less serious on that account.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4400
  

  Keywords:

  aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3872

  
  124th Session, 2017
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [T]he Director-General concluded that, as a security guard, the complainant should not have used the privileged access keys, with which he was entrusted to carry out his assigned duties, to unlock the storage room and take the wine which was the property of the Organization for his personal benefit. The Director-General agreed with the HBA that that action was a violation of trust and of the complainant's responsibilities, and that the fact that his sole responsibility was the protection of security and safety of WHO premises was an aggravating factor.

  Keywords:

  aggravating circumstances; misconduct;