�鶹��ý

In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered “N/A” when asked after “is your...

The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:

Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization

While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had admitted his wrongdoing during his interview by the investigator. Accordingly, the Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed fraud, a prohibited conduct.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant committed fraud. Therefore, his actions amounted to serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s argument that his due process rights were violated because...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent’s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent’s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant’s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant’s supervisors as witnesses. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the UNHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

After being presented with the allegations of misconduct on 9 July 2014, the Applicant responded on 21 August 2014. The decision to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant was communicated to him on 4 December 2014. Thus, a review of the entire case against the Applicant and communicating to him of the outcome took a little over three months. This time frame was not unreasonable and did not constitute a breach of due process. On the facts before the Tribunal, the Applicant did not adduce any evidence to give the Tribunal a basis for reviewing the Secretary-General’s exercise of...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not offered any statement, or evidence, which would contradict the fundamental findings of the disciplinary process regarding the objective element of the impugned conduct, that is, that he made requests largely based upon incorrect information. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested the decision. The Tribunal also established that the Applicant acted in violation of staff regulations 1.2(b) and 1.2(q), and staff rule 1.7 and hence his actions amounted to...