2013-Ģ��ƵAT-374

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

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

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his summary dismissal (which was later commuted into separation with payment in lieu of notice and termination indemnity) for misconduct involving, in sum, his outside engagement with a private business, including installing a private router that would allow external parties to utilise Ģ��ƵDP corporate resources and possibly its network. Ģ��ƵDT found in favour of the Applicant, concluding that the charges of misconduct were not sustained and that, in any event, the sanction was not proportionate to the offence.

Legal Principle(s)

When reviewing a disciplinary sanction, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. Ģ��ƵAT will not substitute the criteria of the administration for its own judgment.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Koutang

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement