2021-UNAT-1183 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2021-UNAT-1183, Iyad Youssef Zaqout

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, UNAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the UNRWA DT’s role to review and assign weight to the evidence before it. Additionally, UNAT also agreed that the behavior of the Appellant, as established by the facts, constituted misconduct under the applicable law and that the sanction was proportionate to the offense. Finally, regarding the Appellant’s claim that not all his witnesses were interviewed, the Tribunal reiterated that there is no requirement to interview all proposed witnesses. The remaining claims of the Appellant were dismissed, and the Tribunal found no violation of his due process rights. The appeal was dismissed and the Judgment of the UNRWA DT was upheld.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

A staff member contested the decision of the Administration to impose on him disciplinary measures following a complaint of harassment and abuse of power. The sanction included a written censure and a loss of one grade, which effectively demoted him. The UNRWA DT dismissed the application finding that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measures were based have been established; (ii) the facts legally support the conclusion of misconduct; (iii) the disciplinary measures were proportionate to the offense, and (iv) the Agency’s discretionary authority was not tainted by evidence of procedural irregularity or other errors.

Legal Principle(s)

In disciplinary cases, the Tribunal will examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure is based have been established (by a preponderance of evidence, but where termination is a possible sanction, the facts must be established by clear and convincing evidence); (ii) whether the established facts amount to misconduct; (iii) whether the sanction is proportionate to the offense; and (iv) whether the staff member’s due process rights were respected.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

The appeal was dismissed, and the UNRWA DT Judgment was upheld.

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Iyad Youssef Zaqout

Entity

UNRWA

Case Number(s)

2020-1489

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York