����AV

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration’s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to “pick and choose” what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...

UNAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. UNAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Regardless of his appeal of the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity, the Applicant’s failure to honour his private legal obligations under Swiss law violated staff rule 1.2(b) and ST/AI/2010/12 and thus the established facts amount to misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the disciplinary measure imposed in this case was proportionate to the established misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected.