±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in an Order.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing had not affected its decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

The allegations that the Applicant improperly used his ±¬ÁÏÍøDP-issued laptop to access websites that contained pornography and other sexually explicit material and advertised escort services, has been established by clear and convincing evidence based on the investigations forensic report of his computer, the Applicant's partial admittance and several contradictions.There is also clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in three instances of unauthorised outside activities by being the Director and major shareholder of a company, and engaging in other business ventures in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s argument that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT applied the incorrect standard of proof is unsubstantiated, as the main facts of the case were undisputed by both parties. She had admitted having used ±¬ÁÏÍø Womens¡¯ UPS account to send two private shipments abroad, without mentioning any prior authorization. The aggravating and mitigating elements reviewed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT were by nature peripheral to the sanction imposed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that even if it was not appropriate for the Administration to use a prior act of possible misconduct as an aggravating factor (as it was not previously...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had an obligation as a staff member to uphold the highest standards of integrity which include acting with honesty. In her submissions, she argued that she acted truthfully and with honesty. She gave reasons why she thought she could use Organization¡¯s assets for personal benefit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s justifications were not supported by any rule or regulation. She acted dishonestly in breach of integrity standards by using the Organization¡¯s UPS facility for personal benefit without any lawful justification. The Tribunal found that the...

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB¡¯s recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically held that the JAB¡¯s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that grounds existed to discharge Mr Leal for misconduct, without needing to address the issue of the alleged circumvention of the recruitment process for the purposes of hiring. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the misconduct and disciplinary measure of dismissal fell within the discretion of the Secretary-General and could not be seen as disproportionate to the offences unless it was the result of proven abuse or arbitrary exercise of that discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the key elements of Mr Leal¡¯s due process were met. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding otherwise. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the charge of...

The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB¡¯s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...