Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General¡¯s witnesses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation¡¯s findings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to grant Mr. Nair¡¯s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the confusion presented by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that ¡°no misconduct occurred at all¡±, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had ¡°repeatedly reacted and used hostile language¡± which justified, in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...

The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute with respect to the material facts of the case. The Applicant was subject to an investigation and disciplinary process while employed at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, had his appointment terminated for misconduct, and did not disclose this information in his PHP when applying for the position at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵLB, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC.

The Applicant's attempts to justify his conduct were both illogical and not grounded on evidence.

False claims and misrepresentations of qualifications on PHPs constitute serious misconduct for violating the legal framework. The Applicant's conduct was not an...

The application is denied.

The allegations that the Applicant improperly used his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP-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...

In sum, considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the imposed disciplinary and administrative measures were adequate in light of the Administration¡¯s scope of discretion in this matter.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason why the Appeals Tribunal should intervene and modify the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings, which were both reasonable and equitable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while the hiring of the casual workers was not part of Mr. Saleh¡¯s official duties, Mr. Saleh coordinated and supervised the work of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR implementing partner which was responsible for hiring at the warehouse, and Mr. Saleh also had the function of overseeing the warehousing operations. Given these responsibilities, as well as his previous intense involvement in the setting up and management of the warehouse, which...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

The Applicant contested the imposition of disciplinary and non-disciplinary measures following the completion of a disciplinary process thus, she was not required to request management evaluation as per staff rule 11.2(b). In accordance with art. 8.1(d)(ii), her application should have been submitted directly to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of her receipt of the administrative decision. The Applicant received the sanction letter/contested decision on 1 April 2022, which meant that she had to file her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application on or before 30 June 2022 to be within the prescribed time limits. She...