�山����

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

The Tribunal then turned to examine the proportionality of the sanction. According to the Sanction Letter, the USG/DMSPC considered in his assessment of the proportionality of the disciplinary measure, mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the Organization’s past practice in comparable matters involving political activities and unauthorized outside activities. As mitigating factors, the USG/DMSPC considered the Applicant’s i) early admission; ii) expression of remorse; and iii) long service and positive performance. As aggravating factors, the USG/DMSPC considered i) the Applicant’s repeated engagement in misconduct over an extended period; ii) his unauthorized outside activities involved multiple associations; iii) his conduct violated multiple Staff Regulations and Rules; and iv) his engagement in political activities had exposed the Organization to reputational risk. The Applicant challenged the proportionality of the sanction on several grounds. He mainly claimed that the Administration failed to properly consider the issues below as mitigating circumstances. 

The Applicant’s cooperation with OIOS:

The Applicant alleged that he fully cooperated with OIOS and immediately ceased to engage further in the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s argument was misconceived as he was legally obliged to cooperate with the investigation as per staff rule 1.2 (c) and as such, this was not a mitigating factor. Similarly, the fact that he cut ties with the associations when he was notified of the allegations against him does not change the Applicant’s misconduct, which had already occurred, and it is not a mitigating factor either as refraining from misconduct is the minimum requirement expected from every staff member.

The Applicant’s involvement in Associations:

The Tribunal found that given the nature of his activities, the Applicant’s active involvement in several Associations went far beyond the scope of para. 5.1 of ST/AI/2000/13. Likewise, the Applicant should have sought and obtained the Secretary-General’s prior approval to engage in outside activities and ensure that his activities were compatible with his status as an international civil servant. He failed to do so. Furthermore, in representing the interests of these Associations, rather than the interests of the Organization, in his dealings with entities of the �山����Member States, he placed himself in a situation of conflict of interest and breached his duty, as a staff member, to remain impartial and independent.

The Applicant’s involvement in political activities:

The Tribunal found that the Organization was correct in determining that the Applicant's engagement in political activities had exposed the Organization to reputational risk, which was properly considered as an aggravating factor in assessing the proportionality of the sanction imposed.

The Applicant’s disciplinary record and dedication:

The Tribunal noted that the Organization properly considered the Applicant’s long service and positive performance as a mitigating factor. However, the fact that the Applicant had a clear disciplinary record is irrelevant as this was expected of each staff member, and as such, the Organization did not fail in not considering it as a mitigating factor.

The Organization’s past practice in comparable matters:

The Tribunal determined that the Applicant’s choice of precedents was immaterial as the cases he referred to were not comparable to his misconduct. The Applicant engaged in multiple instances of political activities and extensive unauthorized activities in four Associations that he led and managed for a period almost comprising his entire employment with the Organization (13 years). All these activities reflected negatively on his impartiality and independence and resulted in a conflict of interest. Considering the above, the Tribunal found that the applicable sanction was not excessive to the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct. The sanction imposed was not the most severe (dismissal) showing that the Administration was quite lenient towards the Applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was proportionate to the grave offences committed.