±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member publicly engaged in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing had not affected its decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had before it a video clip depicting the actions in question, which were clearly of a sexual nature.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the lawfulness of the...

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

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly identified several procedural irregularities in the contested decision. Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS) Technical Instruction 02/2016 on ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s Investigation Policy (DTI 02/2016), the investigation should have been authorized within 10 days of the Intake Committee¡¯s report; yet here, the authorization to investigate took 11 months to be given. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that this delay was so excessive that it would distress an average person.

Analyzing the evidence presented by the staff member regarding the...

The investigation panel properly investigated 13 of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 113 of the Judgment). It did not however properly investigate six of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 115 of the Judgment).

Consequently, the responsible official acted on a partially defective report and the decision to close the case with managerial action cannot stand with respect to the complaints that were not properly investigated.

In view of the time lapse since the events in support of the Applicant¡¯s allegations that were not properly investigated occurred, the Tribunal does not find it...

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant¡¯s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the ±¬ÁÏÍøEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., ¡°a review of the review¡±. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendations...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General¡¯s witnesses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation¡¯s findings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not a procedural error.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...