51ÁÔÆæ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected an application by the Staff Union of the ICTY for leave to file a friend-of-the court brief under Article 17 of its Rules of Procedure on the scope of review of the Secretary-General¡¯s decision in disciplinary proceedings and the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, on the basis that the facts and legal issues were not so complex that the brief would assist it. UNAT held that UNDT, in exercising judicial review, may interfere with the exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion in disciplinary proceedings against a staff member on the ground...

UNAT held that UNDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division¡¯s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, UNAT agreed with UNDT that it would have been...

UNAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, UNAT noted that UNDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. UNAT rescinded the UNDT¡¯s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. UNAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. UNAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, UNAT held that it...

UNAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant¡¯s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. UNAT further held that the Appellant¡¯s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA decision.

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, UNAT held that the UNRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. UNAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. UNAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

UNAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was time-barred. UNAT held that even if the appeal was not time-barred, it would be dismissed on merits. UNAT was satisfied that the established facts showed that the Appellant engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate to the offence. UNAT further held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any violation of her due process rights. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision to demote the Appellant.

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB¡¯s recommendation. UNAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. UNAT specifically held that the JAB¡¯s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before UNDT. UNAT also found that UNDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. UNAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the UNHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...