¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal found that there was clear and convincing evidence that on the morning of 9 February 2015, at his office, the Applicant commited misconduct. The established facts legally amounted to misconduct, in violation of the norms consistently upheld by the Organization since at minimum 1992, where sexual harassment was described as unacceptable behaviour for the staff of the United Nations, and reiterated through, among other, outlawing, in 2003, sexual exploitation and abuse as serious misconduct warranting a summary dismissal, and through a detailed anti-harassment and abuse of authority...

UNDT found that on the date of the issuance of the disciplinary measure, as well as on the date when it was received by the Applicant, she remained subject to the Staff Regulations and Rules, which allow for the imposition of disciplinary measures. UNDT held that the facts of the case demonstrate that the Applicant’s actions were undertaken in a conflict of interest in violation of staff regulation 1.2(m). The actions also demonstrate lack of integrity in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b), which requires staff members to “[…] uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and...

The Tribunal found that V01 was a credible witness. Her testimony was taken independently, bearing in mind all the circumstances, and established the facts that sexual exploitation and abuse took place. The Tribunal found W01 a credible witness, her testimony relating to the first incident which she resolved informally with the Applicant was consistent with and corroborated V01’s testimony. The Applicant did not successfully discredit this testimony. The Tribunal found that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. The Applicant engaged in sexual...

The Tribunal finds that the recovery of CHF2,838 constituting financial loss occasioned to the Respondent through the Applicant’s private phone calls is not a relevant consideration to the determination of the proportionality of the sanction. This is because the recovery is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 10.2(b)(ii) which expressly clarifies that recovery of monies owed to the Organisation is a not a disciplinary measure. The Applicant has failed to show that he deserves a more lenient sanction than the one imposed. His impecuniosity, resulting from the sanction is...