�鶹��ý

It was undisputed and established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in several instances of outside activities. It was further undisputed that the Applicant was advised to seek authorization for her online activities. The Applicant’s challenge, therefore, is limited to the characterization of the established conduct as outside activities and, consequently, as misconduct.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by clear and convincing evidence

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was aware that her online activities constituted outside activities for the purpose of staff rule 1.2(t), and the Administration thoroughly and properly advised her on the matter.

The Applicant used the knowledge gained from her official functions to intensely criticize the international humanitarian aid/coordination system, of which the Organization she works for is part of. She essentially vilified the entire international humanitarian assistance/aid system by portraying it as a corrupt neo-colonial business designed to exploit African countries and trap them into dependency. She also criticized the State Parties who are part of the system, whether as donors or beneficiaries. The way the Applicant expressed herself was not in accord with the impartiality and independence required of an international civil servant.

The Applicant’s behaviour, therefore, cannot be disassociated from her official position at OCHA, and is blatantly against the interests of the Organization as a whole. Her actions were intentional. She knew she had to seek authorization for outside activities, and she was briefed on the reason why her posts were problematic and on why they constituted an outside activity. Despite having been notified of the issue and agreeing to take some posts and videos down in 2020, the Applicant subsequently blatantly disregarded the rules and resumed her unauthorized activities.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the facts that base the disciplinary measure under challenge were established by clear and convincing evidence.

Whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant, instead of avoiding public pronouncements that could adversely reflect on her status actually sought them. Instead of ensuring that her online activities did not affect the interests of the United Nations, she intentionally connected the two. Disguising her online activities as “personal opinions”, the Applicant blatantly violated her obligations as an international civil servant and the foregoing Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Applicant’s overall conduct was fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable with the proper discharge of her duties with the United Nations. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the established facts legally amount to serious misconduct under the applicable rules and regulations.

Whether the disciplinary measure applied is proportionate to the offence

The Tribunal found that it was reasonable for the decision-maker to consider that the Applicant’s actions were so damaging to the employment relationship of mutual trust between the Applicant and the Organization, that it became untenable to continue it. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was reasonable, lawful, and proportionate to the misconduct.

The Tribunal also found that the Applicant’s due process rights were observed.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal decided to reject the application in its entirety.