51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by UNDT had to be vacated. UNAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the sanction imposed on Mr Cobarrubias was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate. UNAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters, with which it would not lightly interfere. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT dismissed Mr Rajan¡¯s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. UNAT held that the UNDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. UNAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. UNAT held that it was Mr Rajan¡¯s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it concluded that the Administration¡¯s decision was unlawful and that the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the behaviour triggering it. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it ordered rescission of the sanction and compensation in lieu thereof and substituted the sanction imposed for a lesser one. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had broad discretion to determine whether the assault amounted to serious misconduct and to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure. UNAT held...

UNAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

UNAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant¡¯s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

On appeal by the Secretary-General, UNAT found that UNDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. UNAT noted that a proper consideration of the whole of the evidence could only have led to one conclusion, and that is that the individual assaulted the victim. UNAT found that UNDT did not consider the evidence objectively, specifically by giving misplaced importance to minor inconsistencies, coming to unreasonable conclusions on the facts which were not supported by the evidence, and making speculations instead of...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT committed errors of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in its assessment of the alleged victim¡¯s credibility. UNAT held that, contrary to UNRWA DT¡¯s understanding, there was no record that the alleged victim had stated that she had been sexually attacked by the Appellant on previous occasions. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in drawing a negative inference about the credibility of the alleged victim from her delayed reporting. UNAT held that UNRWA erred in its assessment of the Appellant¡¯s credibility, in particular...