2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1024

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. Ģ��ƵAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. Ģ��ƵAT disagreed with Ģ��ƵDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT��s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting Ģ��ƵAT intervention. Ģ��ƵDT did not err on any question of law or fact permitting interference by Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the Administration��s decision that his conduct, of failing to report a serious incident to which he had responded or to take appropriate action, amounted to misconduct and the subsequent imposition of disciplinary measures. Ģ��ƵDT found that the sanction of deferment for eligibility for consideration for promotion for 2 years and the administrative measure requiring the staff member to attend a course on gender sensitivity was both reasonable and not disproportionate. Ģ��ƵDT found that there was no purpose in combining the disciplinary measure of deferment for eligibility for promotion with a written censure, as the latter was subsumed by the former. Ģ��ƵDT upheld the disciplinary measure of deferment of promotion for two years but dismissed the charge that the Applicant had instructed other staff members to provide false information. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of written censure.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT has a broad discretion under Article 18(1) of Ģ��ƵDT RoP to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be attached to such evidence. Some degree of deference must be given to the factual findings of Ģ��ƵDT as the court of the first instance, particularly where oral evidence is given. The Tribunals will only intervene 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. The Secretary-General has the discretion to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances when deciding upon the appropriate sanction to impose.

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

Nyawa

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement