2012-��AT-209

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (��DT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (��DT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/��AT/114), ��AT held that ��DT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant��s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. ��AT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of authority to do so. ��AT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate, given the gravity of the offences. ��AT granted the Secretary-General's appeal and vacated the ��DT judgment on the merits, rendering moot the appeals against the judgment on compensation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged his summary dismissal for misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. ��DT found that the summary dismissal was unlawful because it breached the rules and procedures for disciplinary investigations as well as the general requirements of due process.

Legal Principle(s)

There are no legal grounds that can justify an award of compensation when no actual prejudice is found. In reviewing a disciplinary case, ��AT has to examine the following: (1) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (2) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct under the Regulations and Rules; and (3) whether the disciplinary measure applied is proportionate to the offence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Applicant

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry