2019-Ģ��ƵAT-976

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. Ģ��ƵAT held that the whole reasoning of Ģ��ƵDT was misconstrued and Ģ��ƵDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of Ģ��ƵFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another Ģ��ƵFPA vendor. Further, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not inform the Ģ��ƵFPA Representative of her association with the Ģ��ƵFPA vendors, that the Appellant was financially advantaged, and that the Appellant gave false statements in her Financial Disclosure Forms, misrepresenting her husband��s association with a vendor. Due to contradictions in the Appellant��s statements before Ģ��ƵDT and the fact she was not an objective witness, Ģ��ƵAT rejected her testimony before Ģ��ƵDT and held her to her statements during the investigation process. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s actions amounted to misconduct on multiple counts. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Secretary-General��s original disciplinary sanction was not excessive, abusive, discriminatory, or absurd, noting that the Secretary-General had considered aggravating and mitigating factors. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested her separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity as a disciplinary measure for several misconduct violations related to the procurement of property that was owned by her relatives. Following a de novo review, Ģ��ƵDT ordered the rescission of her disciplinary measure on the grounds that it was disproportionate and replaced it with a loss of one step in grade and a written censure or in lieu compensation of 24 months�� net base salary.

Legal Principle(s)

Tribunals will only interfere and rescind or modify a sanction imposed by the Administration where the sanction imposed is blatantly illegal, arbitrary, adopted beyond the limits stated by the respective norms, excessive, abusive, discriminatory, or absurd in its severity.

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

Ganbold

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement