2021-��AT-1182

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the ��DT erred in concluding otherwise. ��AT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. ��AT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and ��DT erred in finding that the charge of carrying a ��-issued weapon while off duty and without authorisation was not substantiated. ��AT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant carried his weapon at the time of the accident and that ��DT erred in, inter alia, finding that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant was in possession of the firearm after having consumed alcohol and that the charge of carrying a service weapon after having consumed alcohol was unsubstantiated. ��AT held that the finding that the Appellant drove under the influence of alcohol while in possession of an unauthorised weapon, together with the offence of travelling without insurance, justified the sanction of dismissal, which was proportionate in the circumstances. ��AT granted the appeal and reversed the ��DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity as a disciplinary sanction for serious misconduct in the form of, inter alia, carrying a �� firearm without proper authorisation while off-duty. ��DT rescinded the contested decision, set aside the sanction and ordered reinstatement or compensation in lieu.

Legal Principle(s)

Drinking and driving is conduct unbefitting of an international civil servant and is not permitted under the United Nations legal framework.

Outcome

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

Pierre Paris

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement