¹ú²úAV

2013-UNAT-366

2013-UNAT-366, Abu Ghali

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, UNAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. UNAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under domestic criminal proceedings than would arise from those under investigation for misconduct pursuant to UNRWA’s Regulations and Rules. UNAT held that UNRWA DT could properly determine that the Appellant’s actions constituted misconduct despite his acquittal of the criminal charges brought against him. UNAT held that a staff member’s knowing possession of a large amount of a banned drug constituted serious misconduct. UNAT held that a reasonable presumption could be drawn that the Appellant participated in the illegal trade of Tramal based on his possession of a large amount of the drug, which also constituted serious misconduct. Noting that UNRWA DT may properly consider the nature of misconduct vis-à-vis the nature of the staff member’s post in determining whether a sanction is proportionate, UNAT agreed that termination was a proportionate sanction for the Appellant’s misconduct because his post was, in part, to combat drug abuse. With regards to the number of claims by the Appellant of legal or procedural error, UNAT held that the Appellant did not explain how the alleged errors prejudiced him or violated his due process rights. UNAT held that, even assuming arguendo that these errors occurred, none of them would be a ground to reverse the judgment and therefore there was no need for UNAT to address such claims. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his termination for misconduct in the form of dealing in Tramal, a drug banned in Gaza. UNRWA DT dismissed his application.

Legal Principle(s)

UNRWA DT has a broad discretion to determine the weight to be attached to evidence. UNRWA DT may properly consider the nature of misconduct vis-à-vis the nature of the staff member’s post in determining whether a sanction is proportionate. For termination, the Administration must prove the facts underlying the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. Misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.