�鶹��ý

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was “detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputation”. Second, by arguing that “she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority” and “rehabilitate” her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical...

The UNDT held that imposition of a sanction is not just a mechanical exercise, since the sanction should not be “more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result.

A written censure would have been a suitably “meaningful consequence” and sufficient to impress upon the Applicant the error of his actions. The record indicates that he acknowledged that he should have sought authorisation before registering his company.

The Tribunal therefore finds that the sanction in this case was disproportionate to the misconduct by adding to the written censure an additional, unnecessary...

The Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal (which were also approved by the General Assembly), expressly provide that “published judgements will normally include the names of the parties.” Even if names were within the ambit of “personal data”, it appears clear that this Tribunal must balance the need for accountability with the need to protect personal data according to the circumstances of each case. In so doing, it is the general practice of this judge to avoid using names, other than the parties, to protect the anonymity of innocent persons somehow involved in the case. As a victim of...

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, “OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action”.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration’s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The Applicant’s request for RC to prepare questions for the ACABQ members to ask the USG/OSAA about the issues that the Senior Managers had been contesting in the office was a breach of staff regulation 1.2(i) which provides that “[s]taff members shall exercise the utmost discretion with regard to all matters of official business. They shall not communicate to any Government, entity, person or any other source any information known to them by reason of their official position that they know or ought to have known has not been made public, except as appropriate in the normal course of their...

Each of the three allegations were serious on their own. The compound nature of the allegations left no possibility for any other punishment than separation. The Organization’s zero-tolerance policy also entails severe punishments for those who engage in harassment (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, para. 41).

The record indicated that the decision-maker weighed all factors, both mitigating and aggravating, before arriving at the contested decision. Since there was sufficient evidence that all factors were given due consideration, but that the aggravating...

It was undisputed and established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in several instances of outside activities. It was further undisputed that the Applicant was advised to seek authorization for her online activities. The Applicant’s challenge, therefore, is limited to the characterization of the established conduct as outside activities and, consequently, as misconduct.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by clear and convincing evidence

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was aware that...

The Trinunal found that the Applicant’s contest to the decision of 19 July 2021 to place him on ALWP was time-barred as the Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision within the stipulated deadline. The Tribunal found that the subsquent decisions to extend the Applicant’s placement on ALWP were lawful.

The Tribunal found that Applicant’s persistent refusal to complete the 2018/2019 e-PAS evaluations for staff members for whom the Applicant was the First Reporting Officer ("FRO") and engage with KJ constituted misconduct. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant...

Applicant’s request for anonymization

The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-UNAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the“harm this case has caused” him and the “sensitive information” referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant’s motion was denied.

Receivability

The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...