2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1254

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

As a preliminary matter, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute and therefore Ģ��ƵAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, Ģ��ƵAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in the JAB��s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant��s failure to report to work and holding of simultaneous employment at two entities, while at IFAD, without disclosing this or obtaining appropriate authorisation from IFAD; and his failure to consult the Ethics Office about his NGO affiliations. Ģ��ƵAT held that it had not detected any error in the JAB ruling on the proportionality of the sanction to the misconduct. Ģ��ƵAT held that, although it did not always agree with the language used by the JAB in its decision, there was no error in the JAB conclusion which affirmed the contested disciplinary measure of summary dismissal imposed on the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the JAB decision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant contested the decision to dismiss him from service for misconduct in the form of failing to report to work and holding of simultaneous employment at two entities; and failure to consult the Ethics Office about his outside activities, essentially NGO affiliations.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵAT cannot conduct a review without a decision from a neutral first instance process. In disciplinary cases, the tribunals will examine: whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure is based have been ascertained by a preponderance of evidence (or where termination is a possible sanction, the facts must be established by clear and convincing evidence); whether the established facts amount to misconduct; whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence; and whether the staff member��s due process rights were respected.

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

Francoise Xavier Nsabimana

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement