����AV

The UNAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the UNDT was not a procedural error.

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred.  The UNAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant’s objective...

While regrettably there is neither an eyewitness to the physical assault in question nor any security camera that could have captured the assault on video, the complainant provided, under oath, a detailed and coherent account of the physical assault in question, the circumstances leading to it and its aftermath. His account of the physical assault and subsequent events is corroborated by other witnesses’ testimonies, the documentary evidence and/or the Applicant’s contemporaneous behaviour, i.e., his attempt to bring some soft drinks to the complainant a few hours after the physical assault...

The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal correctly reasoned that under the UNFPA Disciplinary Framework, the assessment of the facts of misconduct is not exclusive to OAIS, but that the Director of the Department of Human Resources (Director/DHR) must also analyze the evidence, and such analysis could lead DHR to a different conclusion than that of OAIS. Accordingly, in this case, the UNAT found that the UNFPA Administration had the authority or locus standi to proceed with a disciplinary process even in the absence of a finding of misconduct by OAIS. The UNAT further held that the UNFPA...

The burden of proving the provenance and authenticity of the footage is on the Respondent. The Tribunal found that the challenge as to the evidentiary value of the video can properly be dismissed, given the type of document (a video file), its content (a continuous show of people interacting with no discrepancies) and the comments on it by the Applicant (as mentioned). The Tribunal found that a forensic examination of the files was not necessary and that the anonymity of the sources did not undermine its clear and objective content. In this case, the Applicant was not simply careless to have...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Ibrahim. UNAT held, agreeing with UNDT, that there was nothing illegal or warranting compensation in the investigation process and the investigation was not vitiated by procedural error or improper motive. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the cross-appeal. UNAT held that the bottle of wine disappeared immediately after Mr Ibrahim had handled it for the second time in front of the camera and then with his back obstructing the camera. UNAT held that, apart from the direct link between the manipulation of the bottle of wine by...

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that UNDT’s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT’s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. UNAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

The UNDT found that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was wrongful. Assault: A charge of assault is a criminal charge and it was not within UNICEF competence to investigate a criminal offence or a tort alleged to have been committed. Identification of staff members: The Tribunal took judicial notice of the fact that when an international staff member finds him or herself facing an imminent threat of physical harm or is placed in some other peculiar position especially in a foreign country, it is reasonable to identify oneself as a UN Staff Member. Sexual harassment: It is unusual...

The Tribunal noted that the delegation of authority in disciplinary matters from the SG to the USG for Management in July 2009 had not been published and as such lacked a substantial requirement for taking legal effect. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the USG for Management could not further delegate this power to another person, since any kind of “sub-delegation” should have been provided for in the initial delegation of authority by the SG to the USG for Management, which was not the case. The decision to dismiss the Applicant was taken by the OIC, USG for Management. The Tribunal found...

The Tribunal concluded that the sanction was taken in accordance with the applicable regulations and rules that govern disciplinary matters and that it was in line with sanctions applied in other matters of similar nature. The Applicant’s due process rights were respected throughout the preliminary investigation and the ensuing disciplinary process. The contested decision was both factually and legally reasoned and did not reflect any bias, improper motivates, flawed procedural irregularity or errors of law. The Applicant’s disciplinary liability was correctly determined and the disciplinary...