Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal, in which the Appellant claimed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed procedural errors in allowing the Secretary-General to embark on a de novo fact-finding inquiry and that the disciplinary measure of separation was disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold oral hearings as well as to order the production of evidence for fair and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte¡¯s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not sustain the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Mr Koutang¡¯s actions did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the sanction imposed was not unreasonable, absurd, or disproportionate and, as such, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain¡¯s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the key elements of Mr Leal¡¯s due process were met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ms Akello¡¯s involvement in the private company Blessed Seasons, which was on a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ list of companies providing escort vehicle services, met the standard of business activity and enterprise prohibited by former Staff Regulation 1. 2(m) and that her activities amounted to a conflict of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in ruling otherwise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact and the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal succeeded on that ground. On the issue of whether the very fact that the Internal Affairs Unit investigation, having...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly declined to accept...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that it was not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...