�山����

The Tribunal found that there was ample justification for the decision maker’s plausible conclusion that the Applicant breached his obligation to disclose an actual, or possible, conflict of interest.  Although only evidence on a balance of probabilities was required, the evidence presented surpassed that standard and was clear and convincing.  

The fact or possibility of such personal interest could impact negatively on the perception of integrity, independence and impartiality required of the Applicant as an international civil servant. The Applicant had a duty was to disclose the actual or...

The Applicant contests his non-selection and being found not suitable for the position advertised under JO 18186. He identified as the contested decision the Management Evaluation Unit's response dated 24 March 2021. However, a management evaluation response is not a judicially reviewable administrative decision. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae. The above notwithstanding, the Tribunal recalls that it falls under its competence “to individualize and define the administrative decision impugned by a party and identify what is in fact being contested and so, subject...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s complaints about lack of due process were without merit. The Applicant did not establish that the Respondent failed to afford him due process in the investigation and disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal recalled that the Applicant was sanctioned for: (i) Misleading the UNHCR’s Global Fleet Management (“GFM”) regarding the extent of the damage to the UNHCR’s vehicle;...

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenged a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation.

The Applicant was notified of the decision in writing by email dated 17 June 2022. Accordingly, he was required to file his application by 15 September 2022. However, the Applicant filed it on 18 September 2022. The application was therefore not filed within the deadlines stipulated by the Tribunal's Statute. Further, the Applicant did not request a waiver of the deadline before filing his late application or in the late application itself. The application was found to not be receivable.

The Applicant received the contested decision on 10 May 2022 thus, she should have requested management evaluation by 9 July 2022 but she did not do so until 13 July 2022. The application was deemed not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within the stipulated time limit.

The Tribunal found that with clear and convincing evidence, the Respondent only managed to establish that the Applicant intended to assert some, albeit ineffective, pressure on BM in the hiring process of daily workers. Under Sanwidi, the Tribunal found that the termination of the Applicant’s appointment was manifestly incorrect and led to a disproportionate outcome. The contested decision was therefore unlawful.  

Considering its findings on the unlawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind this decision (in comparison, see...

The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.

The rationale for imposing such an extraordinary administrative measure in matters of ALWOP concerning sexual misconduct is twofold, firstly to act as a deterrent for staff members from engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse and secondly, to protect the interests of the Organization by upholding its integrity and reputation. Any decision to extend ALWOP must be reasonable and proportionate. A decision to extend ALWOP is a drastic administrative measure and normally should be of short duration. In determining whether an extension of ALWOP is lawful, the Tribunal shall be guided by factors...

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant’s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant’s previous contractual...