Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that UNDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. UNAT held that the whole reasoning of UNDT was misconstrued and UNDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of UNFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another UNFPA vendor. Further, UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not inform the UNFPA Representative of her association with the UNFPA vendors, that the Appellant was financially advantaged, and that the Appellant gave false statements in her Financial Disclosure Forms, misrepresenting her husband’s association with a vendor. Due to contradictions in the Appellant’s statements before UNDT and the fact she was not an objective witness, UNAT rejected her testimony before UNDT and held her to her statements during the investigation process. UNAT held that the Appellant’s actions amounted to misconduct on multiple counts. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s original disciplinary sanction was not excessive, abusive, discriminatory, or absurd, noting that the Secretary-General had considered aggravating and mitigating factors. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.