Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid¡¯s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who lacked the necessary delegated authority to issue a reprimand. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even though Mr Ward signed the memorandum, the decision was taken on behalf of the High Commissioner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in a matter of law when it found that the facts of the case were not established to the requisite standard of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence produced before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT demonstrated that the reprimand was based on ¡°reasonable grounds¡±, which was sufficient to establish the facts to the applicable standard of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of the reprimand was a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Elobaid contested the decision to issue him a written reprimand and to withhold an investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered rescission of the decision to issue a reprimand and that the reprimand was expunged from the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File.
Legal Principle(s)
The consequences of a disciplinary measure are not equivalent to those of an administrative measure. Although the reprimand could have an adverse impact on the concerned staff member¡¯s career, since it is placed in their Official Status File, it is not comparable, by its nature, to the effects of any disciplinary measure.