The reform of the Organization’s internal justice system is a major undertaking running in parallel with the five-yearly review, because as an employer and a State, CERN establishes its own laws, making the entire CERN community dependent on these mechanisms, which encompass appeal, disciplinary and harassment procedures alike.

This reform required more than six years of concertation, carried out through a working group and discussions held within the Standing Concertation Committee (SCC). It came to fruition this year with the creation of a new Administrative Circular No. 34 (AC34) and Operational Circular No. 12 (OC12), replacing OC9 and OC10, which had governed procedures relating to harassment and fraud. An article co-signed by the Director-General and the President of the Staff Association is expected to be published in the Bulletin to explain the main changes, without going into the detail of the long and difficult concertation process that led to these provisions, which is what we try to explain here.

We thank all the colleagues who worked toward this major achievement, which should enable better administration of justice at CERN.

The immunities enjoyed by international organizations such as CERN prevent members of its personnel from bringing any “internal” matter before national courts. Internal justice mechanisms are therefore fundamental to its proper functioning: they are the only means of correcting any misstep, misunderstanding, error or dispute. Their proper functioning allows all of us to work with confidence that the rules will be respected.

In 2020, after observing developments in other organizations, a joint working group on internal justice (IJWG), comprising representatives of the Administration and the Staff Association (SA), was set up. Following initial discussions, it recommended a study by two external experts to explore the strengths and weaknesses of our system, which had been in place for several decades, and to make proposals. An 89-page report was finalized in early 2023, containing 20 recommendations, among them: strengthening informal conflict-resolution mechanisms, making a request for review mandatory before any internal appeal, the “professionalization” of the Joint Advisory Appeals Board (JAAB), the consolidation of investigations, and the abolition of the Joint Advisory Disciplinary Board (JADB). These recommendations were then studied and discussed at length within the working group in order to pin down precisely their impact.

Starting with the abolition of the JADB: this would have meant that the Administration alone would decide on sanctions, effectively limiting any adversarial procedure to the appeal of that decision before the JAAB. The SA firmly opposed this change because, among other things, such an appeal would not have suspensive effect (the sanction would be applied immediately, with all its consequences), and the reputation and career of the person concerned would be permanently damaged, regardless of the outcome of the adversarial procedure, which allows differing views to be confronted and understanding of what happened to be refined. Fortunately, the Administration and the SA were able to align on this point, and the recommendation was set aside.

The professional rigor of our colleagues who have taken part in appeal or disciplinary proceedings was not called into question by the report, and we thank them for their contributions. The recommendations in favour of “professionalization” mainly concerned two aspects: the creation of an internal justice secretariat, in which a legal officer supports proceedings and ensures follow-up, and the outsourcing of the chairmanship of the JAAB (and the JADB) to a professional legal officer instead of a CERN colleague. Because of this, to ensure equality of arms, given that the chairmanship and the Administration would be represented at hearings by legal professionals, the SA argued that it was necessary to allow our colleagues to likewise be accompanied by a legal professional. On this point too, the Administration agreed that the support available to the persons concerned during JAAB and JADB hearing would be extended to any person of their choosing, which therefore includes (external) legal professionals.

Many other points were discussed on this subject over the past few years, and we again extend our warm thanks to everyone involved, in particular the members of the IJWG for their tireless and long-standing work. Unfortunately, we cannot cover everything in this ECHO article, but we will return in the next issue to other elements of the reform.