�山����

The Respondent failed to secure the attendance of two victims at the remanded hearing. Four witnesses testified before the Tribunal, including only one victim. None of their testimonies corroborates the charges as laid. On the contrary, they are exculpatory in so far as all three witnesses testify that they did not see the Applicant doing anything improper at the event in question. Accordingly, there is no effective response to the concerns that formed the basis for the Appeals Tribunals’ decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

Neither the allegations memorandum nor the sanction...

The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.

Mr. Nastase appealed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT affirmed the UNDT's finding that it had not been established by evidence that the administrative decision to close his complaint was actuated by bias against him and was therefore unlawful. 

The UNAT dismissed Mr. Nastase's contention that the UNDT erred in finding that the fact that in 2019, Mr. Nastase had filed a complaint against the CIOS alleging misconduct was unrelated to his performance issues. The UNAT found that because these events were not part of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority in relation to his performance...

The issue in this case is whether EG and SEG consist of two independent benefits that can be granted in combination.

Pursuant to sec. 6.1(a) of ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, the overall maximum amount of SEG shall be equal to the upper limit of the top bracket of the global sliding scale applicable to the education grant scheme. The law does not allow an interpretation where EG and SEG can be “stacked”. 

Indeed, the difference between EG and SEG is in the percentages of reimbursement that eligible staff members are entitled to receive. This difference in reimbursement percentage addresses the...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the application filed on 2 March 2022 via email was essentially the same as that filed on 16 April 2022 via the eFiling portal. Consequently, in line with Practice Direction No. 4, para. 11, the Tribunal found that the present application was receivable.

 Merits

In the present case, this Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established according to the applicable standard.

The Tribunal examined the evidence on...

To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

 a. Whether the Applicant’s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant’s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of “partially meets performance expectations” for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of “does not meet performance expectations” for the 2020-2021 cycle.

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant’s performance evaluations...

In determining the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a) Whether the Applicant's performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant’s records for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 performance cycles.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and noted that during the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was advised on multiple occasions to improve his work ethic and productivity. At the end of the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was assessed as...

The challenge against the decision to place the Applicant on a PIP and the outcome of the review of MEU of the contested decisions is not receivable.

The Administration failed to respect the procedural standards expected from the United Nations in proceedings leading to the imposition of a written reprimand. The above-mentioned deficiencies raise doubts about the appearance of impartiality of the investigation and the decision-making process and are thus sufficient to taint the contested decision. Accordingly, the Administration’s decision to issue to the Applicant a written reprimand and...

Accoding to the hiring manager, he concluded that the Applicant id not meet one of the minimum requirements for the position and thus, lawfully not considered further in the selection process. This requirement was "experience in leading large teams", which the hiring manager defined as "supervising at least 10 employees".

The Tribunal found that the process of advertising and setting out the criteria for selection was done lawfully. However, it also found that there was evidence of an unjust process that failed to provide a fair chance to job applicants like the Applicant because it failed to...

Based on the applicable legal framework, the Administration can determine the status of eligibility of staff members in connection with dependency entitlements, which include dependent child allowance, and proceed to recover any amounts when a staff members fail to comply with their relevant obligations.

Pursuant to Annex III of ST/IC/2020/12, for a child of a staff member who is not the custodial parent or who has joint custody of the child, which is the case of the Applicant, the amount of payment to be eligible for a child dependency allowance should be at least the amount of the court...