�鶹��ý

UNAT granted the appeal by the Secretary-General and vacated the UNDT Judgment.

The Tribunal held that the Administration did not have sufficient evidence of Mr. Koutang’s level of engagement in outside activities to justify a finding that he had engaged in an outside occupation or employment. Thus, there were no reasonable grounds to sustain a finding of conflict of interest. While Mr. Koutang had installed a private router in his office there was no breach of security and no willful misconduct. Mr. Koutang had no ulterior motive or malicious intent in installing the router. It was at most an error of judgment with no proven adverse effects on the Country Office. The...

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

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...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to declare the existence of his friendship with the selected candidate, including in response to a direct inquiry prior to the completion of the selection process and during the disciplinary process, and that his actions affected the impartiality and fairness of the selection process and the trust vested in him. The Applicant’s due process rights were respected during each phase of the disciplinary process and the sanction imposed was proportional to the misconduct. The application is therefore rejected. The Applicant did not demonstrate that there...

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

The Tribunal concluded that there were procedural violations that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. The Tribunal ordered rescission of the decision or compensation of six months’ net base salary in lieu of rescission. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal concluded that the investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment and the subsequent disciplinary process were in breach of the procedures required by ST/SGB/2008/5 and the IGO Guidelines for Conducting Investigations and that these procedural errors were sufficiently grave to render the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s due process rights had been respected, that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established and amounted to misconduct, and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the offence, and rejected the application. Misconduct: Under the relevant rules, misrepresentation, forgery or false certification in connection with an official claim or benefit—which can include failure to disclose a fact material to that claim or benefit—can be “wilful, reckless or grossly negligent”. Gross negligence is defined as “an extreme or aggravated...

The Applicant, a UNDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion and found the application not receivable ratione temporis because (a) it was filed outside the applicable 90-day time limit as provided for by art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Statute and (b) no extraordinary circumstances prevailed.