Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2024/018

UNDT/2024/018, Hatungimana

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal held that, based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed. The Tribunal found the testimony of the victim to be credible and established that the Applicant had indeed sexually harassed the victim. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and which did constitute serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected during the investigation and disciplinary process. Regarding the Applicant’s claim that the Organisation had violated its duty of care towards him, the Tribunal concluded that the Organization did not violate any duty to the Applicant or any of his rights.

On whether the sanction was proportionate to the offence, the Tribunal concluded that the sanction imposed on the Applicant was not absurd, arbitrary, excessive or unreasonable. Contrary to the Applicant’s claim, the proven facts were not vague at all, but were clear, convincing and very serious. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the sanction imposed in this case was proportionate.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice, without termination indemnity pursuant to staff rule 10.2(a)(viii).

Legal Principle(s)

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 facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; ii. Whether the facts established amount to misconduct; iii. Whether the staff member’s due process rights were guaranteed during the entire proceeding; and iv. Whether the sanction is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

Outcome
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.

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