Ãå±±½ûµØ

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure to respond impacted on the Applicant's professional reputation by leaving him open to suspicion in his professional environment. The decision to open an investigation into forged passports, to remain silent for several years and to mention the Applicant's name in a number of documents related to the investigation and communicated to various countries constituted an administrative decision that had an impact on the Applicant's terms of appointment. UNDT stated that it did not have jurisdiction over matters concerning defamation, as it is bound by the provisions of Article 2 of its statute. UNDT held that the Application was receivable in all respects other than the concept of defamation