�山����

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration’s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The application is DISMISSED in its entirety.

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...

The Applicant failed to convince the Tribunal that the Administration raised in him a legitimate expectation of renewal of his FTA. An erroneously raised personnel action without a written contract does not constitute a ground for legitimate expectation of renewal.

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that the Staff Regulations and Rules must be applied uniformly and consistently to staff members. United Nations procedures exist to facilitate fair and transparent substantive decisions, and the failure to abide by required procedures is no mere “technicality”, but instead undermines...

The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal's Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

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 can be decided through a summary judgment as there was no controversy on the facts, and the legal matter at stake was already been decided by this Tribunal in its Judgment Krioutchkov UNDT/2021/052.

The Applicant decided not to participate in the written assessment, which was a compulsory step in the recruitment process. It follows that his non-selection for the vacant post was exclusively a consequence of his own actions and, as per Loeber 2018-UNAT-836, he stopped himself from contesting the selection outcome.

Although the schedule of the written assessment was probably...