The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.
UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.’s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s argument that UNDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General’s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. UNAT observed that when UNDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel’s report, it did not draw any...
UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. UNAT held that joint representation by UN-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and UNMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. UNAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). UNAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before UNDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...
UNAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, UNAT noted that UNDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. UNAT rescinded the UNDT’s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.
UNAT held that UNDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant’s formal complaint. UNAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of UNDT with regard to the Appellant’s request for an investigation. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the award by UNDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant’s separation from service was not the subject of...
UNAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. UNAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall’s conduct into question. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. UNAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by UNDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had applied an unduly restrictive...
The Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Cabrera’s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. UNAT noted that, in this case, UNDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. UNAT did not agree with the Secretary-General’s contention that UNDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. UNAT found that UNDT...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte’s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. UNAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. UNAT held that the Secretary-General was...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that there was no breach of Mr Powell’s due process rights at the preliminary investigation stage. UNAT held that UNDT manifestly erred in fact and in law by finding that the investigations conducted by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) and the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) Team were final investigations and by then attaching due process rights that were pertinent only after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT findings in paragraphs 86 and 106 of the...
