Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2022/059

UNDT/2022/059, Kenani

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged failures and shortcomings in the investigation process did not prejudice the Applicant’s case. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had discussed an amended procurement bid to enable LL to be awarded the procurement contract; that, as a result, the bid was fraudulently amended and with the Applicant’s acquiescence. Thus, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had acted with knowledge of the context of the procurement process in order to give LL an undue advantage. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s acts constituted a misconduct, in violation of the applicable rules. On whether the sanction was proportionate to the offence, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had appropriately identified the relevant factors and meted out a proportional measure.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested a disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, in accordance with staff rules 10.1(a) and 10.2(a)viii).

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to the jurisprudence, the role of the UNDT in disciplinary cases is to perform a judicial review of the case and assess the following elements: i.              

Whether the staff member’s due process rights were guaranteed during the entire proceeding. ii.

Whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; iii.            

Whether facts amount to misconduct; and iv.          

Whether the sanction is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

 

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
Kenani
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type