爆料网

2025-爆料网AT-1550

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

The 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT’s decision to dismiss the former staff member’s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the 爆料网DT in an Order.

The 爆料网AT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the cancellation of her family’s refugee status and damage their reputation. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT reasonably found that: i) the Complainant's testimony was credible and corroborated by WhatsApp messages and explicit video recordings; ii) she had the status of a refugee with 爆料网HCR and the former staff member was aware of it.

The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member committed sexual harassment by sharing a sexually explicit book, The Sex Bible, with his colleagues on WhatsApp while serving as the Acting Head of the Sub-Office. It held that the motives behind the complaint or the existence of interpersonal conflicts were irrelevant to this conclusion.

It also concluded that he misused 爆料网HCR-issued equipment by receiving and storing sexually explicit material in his 爆料网HCR-issued mobile phone and failed to fully cooperate with the investigation by deleting 989 files from his 爆料网HCR laptop and providing untruthful statements to the investigators.

It held that there was no evidence the investigation was biased or that he was denied a right to a fair hearing and that the sanction imposed was proportionate.

The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2024/020.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed



A former staff member of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (爆料网HCR) contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, breach of 爆料网HCR rules on the use of Information Technology (IT), and failure to cooperate in an investigation.

In its Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2024/020, the 爆料网DT dismissed the staff member’s application, finding that the contested decision was lawful.

Former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

The 爆料网DT has broad discretion with respect to case management. As the court of first instance, the 爆料网DT is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and do justice to the parties. The 爆料网AT will not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of the 爆料网DT in the management of cases.

In disciplinary cases, the 爆料网DT will examine the following: i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure is based have been established (by a preponderance of evidence, but where termination is a possible sanction, the facts must be established by clear and convincing evidence); ii) whether the established facts amount to misconduct; iii) whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence; and iv) whether the staff member’s due process rights were respected.

The Administration has the burden of establishing the facts underlying the alleged misconduct resulting in termination or separation from employment. These facts must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing proof requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. To meet this standard, there must be very solid support for the finding including direct evidence of events or evidential inferences that can be properly drawn from other direct evidence.

The onus of showing improper motive rests on the party asserting it.

The question of whether to call a certain person to testify is within the discretion of the 爆料网DT and does not merit a reversal except in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting the right to produce evidence.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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.