2019-Ģ��ƵAT-915

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. Ģ��ƵAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a written reprimand could not uphold its reasoning, which was therefore flawed. Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT��s findings and conclusions that the impugned decision was unlawful. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Secretary-General merely voiced disagreement, repeated his submissions, and did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the issuance of the reprimand was not a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Administration. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the issuance of a reprimand letter. The Applicant had been informed that the Administration had dropped the charge against her that she had made derogatory comments about another staff member for reasons of insufficient evidence, closed the matter, issued a letter of written reprimand to be placed in the Applicant��s official status file and required the Applicant to do communication and problem-solving training. Ģ��ƵDT considered the decision to reprimand the Applicant to be unjustified and ordered its rescission and the removal of the letter from her official status file.

Legal Principle(s)

Although the reprimand is not a disciplinary measure but an administrative one, because of its adverse impact on the concerned staff member��s career, it must be warranted on the basis of reliable facts, established to the requisite standard of proof, namely that of the preponderance of evidence, and be reasoned in order to allow judicial review and to protect individuals. Ģ��ƵDT has a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be attached thereto.

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

Yasin

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement