Ģ��ƵDT/2020/028

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The fact that the Applicant stated the same erroneous date in the two separate communications clearly and convincingly showed that the Applicant did so deliberately��it was not just a simple typographical mistake. Having found that the Applicant had intentionally misrepresented a divorce date in two separate communications, including an official form, resulting in his unjust enrichment, it clearly fell within the Administration��s latitude of discretion to conclude that the Applicant had committed misconduct. Considering the gravity of the Applicant��s misrepresentations, including the intentional character and his resulting enrichment, Ģ��ƵDP did not overstep its margin of discretion when imposing the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant��s summary dismissal.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT��s limited judicial review of a disciplinary case.

Outcome

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

Massart

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement