UNDT/2023/059, Antoine

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. for having, on 21 May 2020, while in a United Nations vehicle clearly visible from a public street in Tel Aviv, Israel, held a female individual closely to his body while she was seated on his lap facing him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner; these events were captured in an 18-second video-clip, which was widely disseminated, bringing the Organization into disrepute (count one);

b. for failure to cooperate with the OIOS investigations by refusing to provide OIOS with the contact details of a material witness and deleting data from his phone (count two).

On count one, the Tribunal observed that the facts were clearly demonstrated by the 18-second video-clip of the Applicant’s behaviour. The Tribunal recalled that the Applicant admitted to be the person depicted in the video and that alone was sufficient to establish the facts. The Tribunal, thus, concluded that by engaging in activities of sexual nature in slow moving traffic in a public and well-illuminated street, in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, the Applicant accepted the risk that passersby from the public may witness his activity, with an inevitable adverse reputational impact on the Organization. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence.

On count two, the Tribunal held that, based on the evidence on the record, the Applicant failed to provide the necessary information regarding a material witness to the Office of Internal Oversight Services. However, on the prong of deleting the data from his cell phone, the Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of the alleged deletion of data from the device. Further, the Respondent did not indicate the kind of data he was looking for, nor did he establish the relevance of it for the present case.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal noted that by his activity performed in the United Nations car, the Applicant behaved in a manner that, not only put the Organization into disrepute and caused a huge damage to its image, but was contrary to the standard of integrity required to an international official, in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b). Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant engaged in a misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected during the investigation and disciplinary process.

On whether the sanction was proportionate to the offence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had displayed a lapse of integrity such that continuation of his employment relationship with the Organization could not be tolerated. His conduct went against the core values of the Organization. Therefore, the disciplinary measure imposed was not disproportionate.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal, in accordance with staff rule 10.2(a)(ix).

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, 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 facts 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
Antoine
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type