�鶹��ý

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant, as a senior manager, was conferred a duty of care to promote a “harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct” as per ST/SGB/2008/5, which she failed to do. The Applicant’s actions, as established by the facts, constituted harassment and abuse of authority under ST/SGB/2008/5 and amounted to misconduct.

The context of the case in ��’B������� is not similar. Essentially, in ��’B�������, the applicant was the subject of an investigation, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was the complainant. Accordingly, In ��’B�������, the applicant opposed a disciplinary investigation launched against himself based on a misconduct complaint made by others, and he then contested a decision to reject his request for an independent review of the investigation. The Appeals Tribunal, however, dismissed the applicant’s challenge because the decision-maker eventually held in his favour as, contrary to the preliminary...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the UNDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.

The UNAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information. The UNAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that because of a combination of the staff member’s failure to recall the events in question and of the UNDT’s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the UNDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had correctly determined the staff member’s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The UNAT held that the...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the UNDT, the UNAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The UNAT found that the UNDT’s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The UNAT found problematic the fact that the UNDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. UNAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by UNRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before UNRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

The UNAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The UNAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

UNAT held that Mr. Saleh’s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the UNDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the UNDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the UNDT.

UNAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. UNAT then held that Mr. Saleh’s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the UNDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT found that the UNDT failed to address OAI’s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje’s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The UNDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report’s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between UNDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the UNDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of UNICEF. The UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal’s discretion to reject the applicant’s request for referral. The UNDT’s legal approach was correct. The UNDT decided not to refer the ED of UNICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant’s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...