Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no exceptional circumstances existed and rejected the motion. UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT’s finding that the facts constituted misconduct and the sanction was proportionate. Noting that the decision of national courts must be obeyed and that there was no evidence that the child would be in danger or subject to violence with his mother, UNAT held that for the purposes of the administrative appeal before it, the fear of recurrence of violence was groundless as there was no evidence of a violation of the principle of the best interests of the child. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s refusal to comply with the national court’s order, his failure to inform the Organisation of his change in status and to cooperate in the investigation constituted violations of Staff Rules 1.2(b), 1.2(c), 1.5(a) and Staff Regulations 1.1(f) and 1.2(r). UNAT agreed with UNDT that the alleged facts about bias, ineffectiveness, and inadequacy of the national system of justice in Burkina Faso were not relevant regarding the competence of the Ãå±±½ûµØinternal justice system. UNAT clarified that the UN’s internal justice system does not have jurisdiction over civil cases concerning the private or personal life of its staff members. On the Appellant’s challenges to the correctness of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation stage when he was unable to examine or cross-examine the witnesses who were heard, UNAT clarified that the same due process entitlements do not exist during the investigation stage once disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. UNAT held that UNDT handled the case correctly, as no error of law or fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision was established. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.