Ãå±±½ûµØ

2020-UNAT-1024

2020-UNAT-1024, Nyawa

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. UNAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. UNAT disagreed with UNDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, UNAT found that UNDT’s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting UNAT intervention. UNDT did not err on any question of law or fact permitting interference by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the Administration’s decision that his conduct, of failing to report a serious incident to which he had responded or to take appropriate action, amounted to misconduct and the subsequent imposition of disciplinary measures. UNDT found that the sanction of deferment for eligibility for consideration for promotion for 2 years and the administrative measure requiring the staff member to attend a course on gender sensitivity was both reasonable and not disproportionate. UNDT found that there was no purpose in combining the disciplinary measure of deferment for eligibility for promotion with a written censure, as the latter was subsumed by the former. UNDT upheld the disciplinary measure of deferment of promotion for two years but dismissed the charge that the Applicant had instructed other staff members to provide false information. UNDT ordered rescission of the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of written censure.

Legal Principle(s)

UNDT has a broad discretion under Article 18(1) of UNDT RoP to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be attached to such evidence. Some degree of deference must be given to the factual findings of UNDT as the court of the first instance, particularly where oral evidence is given. The Tribunals will only intervene and rescind or modify a sanction imposed by the Administration where the sanction imposed is blatantly illegal, arbitrary, adopted beyond the limits stated by the respective norms, excessive, abusive, discriminatory, or absurd in its severity. The Secretary-General has the discretion to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances when deciding upon the appropriate sanction to impose.

Outcome
Appeal 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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.