Ăĺ±±˝űµŘ

Regulation 1.2(b)

  • 13.1(b)(i)
  • Annex I
  • Annex II
  • Annex III
  • Annex IV
  • Appendix D
  • Provisional Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 1
  • Regulation 1.1
  • Regulation 1.1(a)
  • Regulation 1.1(b)
  • Regulation 1.1(d)
  • Regulation 1.1(e)
  • Regulation 1.1(f)
  • Regulation 1.2
  • Regulation 1.2(a)
  • Regulation 1.2(b)
  • Regulation 1.2(c)
  • Regulation 1.2(e)
  • Regulation 1.2(f)
  • Regulation 1.2(g)
  • Regulation 1.2(h)
  • Regulation 1.2(i)
  • Regulation 1.2(l)
  • Regulation 1.2(m)
  • Regulation 1.2(o)
  • Regulation 1.2(p)
  • Regulation 1.2(q)
  • Regulation 1.2(r)
  • Regulation 1.2(t)
  • Regulation 1.3
  • Regulation 1.3(a)
  • Regulation 10.1
  • Regulation 10.1(a)
  • Regulation 10.1(b)
  • Regulation 10.1a)
  • Regulation 10.2
  • Regulation 11.1
  • Regulation 11.1(a)
  • Regulation 11.2
  • Regulation 11.2(a)
  • Regulation 11.2(b)
  • Regulation 11.4
  • Regulation 12.1
  • Regulation 2.1
  • Regulation 3
  • Regulation 3.1
  • Regulation 3.2
  • Regulation 3.2(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)(i)
  • Regulation 3.5
  • Regulation 4.1
  • Regulation 4.13
  • Regulation 4.13(c)
  • Regulation 4.14(b)
  • Regulation 4.2
  • Regulation 4.3
  • Regulation 4.4
  • Regulation 4.5
  • Regulation 4.5(b)
  • Regulation 4.5(c)
  • Regulation 4.5(d)
  • Regulation 4.7(c)
  • Regulation 5.2
  • Regulation 5.3
  • Regulation 6.1
  • Regulation 6.2
  • Regulation 8
  • Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 8.2
  • Regulation 9.1
  • Regulation 9.1(a)
  • Regulation 9.1(b)
  • Regulation 9.2
  • Regulation 9.3
  • Regulation 9.3(a)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(i)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(ii)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(v)
  • Regulation 9.3(b)
  • Regulation 9.3(c)
  • Regulation 9.4
  • Regulation 9.5
  • Regulation 9.6
  • Regulation 9.6(b)
  • Regulation 9.6(c)
  • Regulation 9.6(e)
  • Regulation 9.7
  • Regulation IV
  • Regulation X
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 113

    Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC’s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her. 

    Whereas the Applicant’s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant’s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by UNICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for UNICEF to end...

    The UNAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier UNDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case.  The UNAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier UNDT judgment.

    The UNAT was satisfied that when the UNDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the UNDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors.  The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

    The UNAT noted that the staff member publicly engaged in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

    The UNAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the UNDT’s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a UNDT hearing had not affected its decision.  The UNDT had before it a video clip depicting the actions in question, which were clearly of a sexual nature.

    The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the lawfulness of the...

    The UNAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

    The UNAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the UNDT’s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a UNDT hearing had not affected its decision.  The UNDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

    The UNAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former UNHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima’s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe. 

    The UNDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless “equivocal” (unclear/vague), “purely circumstantial” and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee). 

    With regard to...

    The Tribunal was unpersuaded by the Applicant’s claim that his participation in the Staff Day activities was “essentially private conduct not involving [United Nations] resources” or that this was “essentially a voluntary, social event”. The requirements for integrity, probity, honesty and truthfulness under the staff regulations and staff rules are not merely “generic obligations” but are specifically intended to apply “in all matters affecting [a staff member’s] work and status”. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the established facts in this case amount to misconduct on the part of...

    Under “Preliminary Issues”, the Tribunal decided to strike from the record the Applicant’s motion for anonymity and to exceptionally accept the Applicant’s closing submission which exceeded the page limit.

    Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by evidence and up to the required standard of proof.

    The Tribunal noted that the sanction was based on four allegations, which it considered separately. After having considered the evidence on record for each allegation, the Tribunal found that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that...

    The Tribunal found no procedural flaws in the procedure adopted to investigate and impose the disciplinary action taken.

    The Tribunal determined that the application should be denied since the misconduct committed by the Applicant was very serious and there were no mitigating factors. The Applicant refused to supply relevant information even though she knew that it was known that she had a sister working in the Organization.

    The disciplinary measure imposed was therefore proportionate and fairly imposed, with full opportunity to respond to questions asked and clarify answers, if necessary.

    A lack of cooperation is not always a relevant circumstance in every case to be taken as aggravating factor. Sometimes, if the lack of cooperation is not serious, it may not be taken as an aggravating circumstance. However, the nature of the case may affect how lack of cooperation during an investigation is viewed. Being dishonest and misleading during the investigation may be considered serious and be taken as a ground of aggravation. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a lack of cooperation can never be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

    While the Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly...