2014-Ģ��ƵAT-408

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT found no merit to the Appellant��s claims that Ģ��ƵDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. Ģ��ƵAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member��s property. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner��s permission, but that she claimed she did not intend to steal it, a claim which Ģ��ƵDT clearly rejected. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s finding, that the facts alleged constituted misconduct, was fully supported by the facts. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly addressed the issue of the proportionality of the disciplinary measure. Ģ��ƵAT found that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ģ��ƵDT made any error of fact or law. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to separate her from service for theft Ģ��ƵDT determined that the only issue before it was the proportionality of the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnities. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the said disciplinary measure considered some extenuating circumstances as it was not the most severe available, given the serious nature of the established misconduct. Ģ��ƵDT held that the Secretary-General was not legally required to consider the opinions of those who had worked with the Applicant before taking a disciplinary decision. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Judicial review of a disciplinary case requires Ģ��ƵDT to consider the evidence adduced and the procedures utilised in the course of the investigation by the Administration. Disciplinary cases require Ģ��ƵDT to examine whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. The Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred. When termination is a possible outcome, the misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Jahnsen Lecca

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement