2011-Ģ��ƵAT-168

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the contested decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that it fully supported the findings of the Ģ��ƵDT that attempting to cheat in an exam was a serious act which pointed to a certain lack of integrity. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err on a question of law in concluding that for a security officer to attempt to cheat constitutes professional misconduct. Ģ��ƵAT held that the requirement of a staff member to supply information concerning facts relevant to his or her integrity, conduct and service was applicable to Mr Yapa. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not commit an error resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision by finding that the sanctions imposed on Mr Yapa were not disproportionate to the nature and seriousness of his misconduct. On the matter of compensation, Ģ��ƵAT noted that Mr Yapa had not demonstrated that he had suffered a direct and certain injury, and therefore Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT��s order for compensation had to be rescinded. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the appeals and upheld the Ģ��ƵDT judgment, with the exception of the award of compensation, which was rescinded.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Yapa contested the disciplinary sanction of written censure and a demotion by one grade without the possibility of promotion for two years for misconduct in the form of attempting to cheat on a test and refusing to cooperate with an investigation. Ģ��ƵDT rescinded the sanction limiting his promotion and awarded compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

A sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted in part

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Yapa

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry