����AV

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant’s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary “administrative action” would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the UN and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in acts affecting two staff members, namely V01 and V02. The Tribunal thus held that the facts on which the sanction was based were clearly established.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s conduct towards V01 and V02 was (i) unwelcome, (ii) of a sexual nature, and (iii) they might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation. Further, his conduct interfered with their work and/or created for them an intimidating, hostile...

The Tribunal finds no flaws in the procedure leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. It further finds, based on its assessment of the intern’s credibility and on the evidence available, that the facts have been established. It also concludes that they qualify as misconduct, even though the Respondent erroneously relied on ST/SGB/2008/5; the latter was indeed issued on 11 February 2008 and was therefore not applicable at the time of the misconduct. Finally, the Tribunal, recalling the Secretary-General’s discretion in disciplinary matters and considering the circumstances of the case, finds...

The Applicant contended that the Complainant’s evidence contained numerous discrepancies and that the Complainant had exercised prevarication over her own statements and had displayed ambivalence over attempts to privately resolve the matter. The Applicant further contended that the finding of sexual harassment was based on the victim’s own perception of the Applicant’s actions. The Tribunal found that: based on the testimony and the entire file, the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were established; by any objective measure, the Applicant’s conduct was prohibited by UNICEF...