����AV

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 Mr Ibrahim and its loss, in view of the video footage and his own contradictions, it was highly probable that he took the bottle of wine. UNAT noted that, if he had not taken the wine, he should have provided some other explanation as to what the video footage showed. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it stated that there was no direct evidence of the removal of the bottle of wine and that the Administration did not take into account or explore other explanations of what may have happened. UNAT held that it appeared that the truth of the facts asserted was highly probable which was enough for a disciplinary measure, whose proportionality was not challenged in the cross-appeal. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or err in law when conducting the proceedings and allowing the production of the evidence. UNAT granted the appeal in part, vacated the UNDT judgment, except with respect to the finding that the case was not “marred by significant procedural irregularities or improper influence such as to constitute a lack of due process resulting in illegality or warranting compensation”.