��DT/2021/076

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��DT held that the Applicant��s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. ��DT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. ��DT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as to address the concerns that ��ICEF had about her conduct, and did not constitute disguised disciplinary measures as they are of a different nature than disciplinary measures, targeted specific behaviours, have a limited application in time, and do not necessarily play a role in future selection exercises. ��DT rejected the application in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the imposition of the following administrative measures on her: a) Issuance of a written reprimand and its placement in her Official Status File (��OSF��) for a period of five years; b) Her removal from all supervisory functions for a period of two years; and c) Requiring her to undertake appropriate training to enhance self-awareness and improve her people management skills.

Legal Principle(s)

Administrative measures have different legal consequences to disciplinary measures, as staff members who are separated or dismissed from service following a disciplinary process on grounds of misconduct are not eligible for reappointment by ��ICEF, and a staff member who has received a disciplinary measure must disclose the measure when applying for a new position.

Outcome

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

Gharagozloo Pakkala

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement