±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability ratione materiae. The Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was not clear on whether he was making allegations of misconduct against his Supervisor, which would need to be dutifully investigated, or citing performance or management issues to be addressed by management. Similarly, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that the matter of lawfulness of the decision to place him on ALWP was ever formally contested by him. Hence, any determination against the decision not to further investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaints of harassment against his supervisor or against his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, although not all allegations of misconduct against Mr Masri were proved, some of the allegations were sufficiently supported by the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence established that Mr Masri met vendors at his home outside working hours and discussed ±¬ÁÏÍø Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) contracts, he received the benefit of interest-free loans from two vendors, and he gave assistance to a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the appeal was not time-barred, it would be dismissed on merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the established facts showed that the Appellant engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate to the offence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any violation of her due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision to demote the Appellant.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion ¡°influenced¡± the Applicant¡¯s decision to resign. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, three months after the Applicant¡¯s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied an unduly restrictive...