UNDT/2023/145, Theunens
The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant’s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary “administrative action” would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and was balanced under all the circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to affirm the disciplinary decision imposed on the Applicant in all respects and to reject the application in its entirety.
The Applicant contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of demotion of one grade with a three-year deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion, pursuant to staff rule 10.2 (a)(vii).
Under the established jurisprudence, the Secretary-General’s discretion to sanction is limited by the proportionality principle “by requiring an administrative action not to be more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result. The essential elements of proportionality are balance, necessity and suitability.