2025-��AT-1533

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The ��AT held that the ��DT did not err in concluding that it was established that the former staff member diverted funds contributed to the United Nations Staff Union to support �� Staff Day to the United Nations Athletic Club (��AC). The ��AT affirmed that even if the former staff member did not obtain personal gain, she misused her office for the private gain of a third party, the ��AC, which constituted misconduct.

The ��AT held that irrespective of what the former staff member��s work environment was like, it cannot justify misconduct.

The ��AT further held that any form of dishonest conduct which compromises the relationship of trust between an employer and their employees warrants dismissal, and therefore, the sanction imposed on the former staff member was proportionate.

The ��AT dismissed the application and affirmed the ��DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The former staff member contested the decisions (a) to dismiss her from service pursuant to fraud, and (b) to separate her from service with compensation in lieu of notice but without termination indemnity for misuse of authority.

In Judgment No. ��DT/2023/141, the ��DT dismissed the application.

The former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Dishonest conduct involves intent or some element of deception and merits the most severe sanctions such as separation from service or dismissal. Deliberate false statements, misrepresentations and failure to disclose required information are inevitably dishonest.

Fraud consists of three cumulative elements: the unlawful making of a misrepresentation, the intent to defraud or deceive, and causing actual or potential prejudice to another. Personal gain is not an element of fraud or misuse of authority.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Cristina Roig

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement