Ãå±±½ûµØ

2024-UNAT-1455

2024-UNAT-1455, Berhane Taklu-Nagga

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT noted that the staff member’s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent’s fees.

The UNAT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the claimants had. The UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT had established the existence of the mental element of his act and correctly determined that his behaviour constituted misconduct.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had concurred with the Administration in its analysis which had taken into consideration the mitigating and aggravating factors in imposing the sanction of separation from service.

The UNAT held that the Organization had respected the principle of presumption of innocence. The UNAT found that the investigator’s words and behaviour were far from amounting to substantial procedural irregularities.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

A former staff member contested the disciplinary decision to dismiss him from service for three counts of fraud for his involvement, as a landlord, in making fraudulent claims for rental subsidy.

In Judgment No. UNDT/2023/035, the UNDT dismissed the application.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals process is not an arena to rediscuss factual issues, which have already been settled by the first instance tribunal.  In the absence of a compelling argument that the UNDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, the Appeals Tribunal will not lightly interfere with the findings of the UNDT.

Whether the established facts constitute misconduct is a question of law which calls for a careful assessment of the facts from the perspective of the applicable legal framework.

Fraud is serious misconduct which significantly damages the trust between the Organization and staff members. Honesty and integrity are core values expected of international civil servants.

The principle of presumption of innocence should be upheld in disciplinary cases.

Only substantial procedural irregularities can render a disciplinary sanction unlawful. Procedural fairness is a highly variable concept and is context-specific.

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.