¹ú²úAV

UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.  UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant’s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant’s supervisors as witnesses. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the UNHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the Appellant’s misconduct.  Further, UNAT concluded that the Appellant’s argument that he was compensating himself for the use of his personal vehicle and the personal expenses incurred during the performance of his functions was took into account as mitigating circumstances. However, UNAT held that Appellant’s argument that he was acting in compliance with the common practice at UNHCR and under the orders of his superiors who were not applying the Policy on the Use of Vehicles in UNHCR was not a valid excuse for misconduct.
Accountability referral: UNAT referred the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability by the Appellant’s supervisors who, in breach of the UNHCR Policy on the Use of Vehicles, authorized the regular use of private cars by staff members for official purposes compensated for by the reimbursement of gasoline expenses.