Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2010/169

UNDT/2010/169, Yapa

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found established the facts of which he was accused and considered they constituted misconduct, no irregularity was identified in the procedure and the sanctions were not deemed disproportionate. However, unlike the written censure and demotion, the prohibition of promotion for a certain period of time was not among the range of disciplinary measures foreseen in former staff rule 110.3 (a), which rendered its imposition unlawful, pursuant to the principle nulla poena sine lege. Hence, the said sanction was rescinded and CHF1000 granted as compensation for the loss of chances sustained. In reviewing disciplinary cases, the Tribunal must examine: (a) whether the procedure followed was regular, (b) whether the facts in question are established, (c) whether those facts constitute misconduct and (d) whether the sanction imposed is proportionate to the misconduct committed. According to administrative instruction ST/AI/371, in particular, to its paragraph 6, the Administration is bound to inform in writing the concerned staff member that disciplinary proceedings have been undertaken once the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, has decided to issue disciplinary charges against him/her. The disciplinary procedure commences only when the Administration does so. The preliminary investigation preceding the disciplinary procedure is not carried out in an adversarial manner and the above-referred instruction does not provide that the concerned staff member mustnecessarily be informed about the subject of the investigation. The applicant could not claim any right not to answer to the Administration’s queries at the preliminary investigation stage. The Tribunal raised on its own initiative the issue that no legal text provided at the time of the facts for the possibility of a demotion measure being accompanied by a prohibition to receive a promotion during a certain period of time. Thus, the accessory prohibition of promotion for two years was unlawful, in keeping with the principle nulla poena sine lege. Staff members must comply with the obligations stemming from their condition without the Administration having to remind them of these duties.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The applicant contested the imposition of a written censure and demotion by one grade without possibility of being promoted again for the following two years as disciplinary measures on the charges of (1) attempt to cheat in a language exam and (2) refusal to cooperate to an investigation by the Administration. Specifically, he was caught by the invigilator with unauthorised material on his desk and subsequently refused to respond to questions during the preliminary investigation thereon.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

The accessory prohibition of promotion was rescinded. CHF1000 was awarded for the loss of chances of promotion.

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Yapa
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type