¹ú²úAV

The UNAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The UNAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the UNDT’s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a UNDT hearing had not affected its decision.  The UNDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

The allegations that the Applicant improperly used his UNDP-issued laptop to access websites that contained pornography and other sexually explicit material and advertised escort services, has been established by clear and convincing evidence based on the investigations forensic report of his computer, the Applicant's partial admittance and several contradictions.There is also clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in three instances of unauthorised outside activities by being the Director and major shareholder of a company, and engaging in other business ventures in...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s argument that the UNDT applied the incorrect standard of proof is unsubstantiated, as the main facts of the case were undisputed by both parties. She had admitted having used UN Womens’ UPS account to send two private shipments abroad, without mentioning any prior authorization. The aggravating and mitigating elements reviewed by the UNDT were by nature peripheral to the sanction imposed. The UNAT found that even if it was not appropriate for the Administration to use a prior act of possible misconduct as an aggravating factor (as it was not previously...

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 Tribunal held that the Applicant had an obligation as a staff member to uphold the highest standards of integrity which include acting with honesty. In her submissions, she argued that she acted truthfully and with honesty. She gave reasons why she thought she could use Organization’s assets for personal benefit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s justifications were not supported by any rule or regulation. She acted dishonestly in breach of integrity standards by using the Organization’s UPS facility for personal benefit without any lawful justification. The Tribunal found that the...

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB’s recommendation. UNAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. UNAT specifically held that the JAB’s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that grounds existed to discharge Mr Leal for misconduct, without needing to address the issue of the alleged circumvention of the recruitment process for the purposes of hiring. UNAT held that the misconduct and disciplinary measure of dismissal fell within the discretion of the Secretary-General and could not be seen as disproportionate to the offences unless it was the result of proven abuse or arbitrary exercise of that discretion. UNAT held that the key elements of Mr Leal’s due process were met. UNAT held that, since the...

UNAT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the UNDT erred in concluding otherwise. UNAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. UNAT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and UNDT erred in finding that the charge of...

The Applicant’s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB’s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...