Search
Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.
To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair鈥檚 recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.
The...
Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.
The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant鈥檚 complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...
The UNAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the UNDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane鈥檚 request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...
The initial decision to deny the Applicant EGT for the 2021-2022 academic year was modified following management evaluation. The Applicant was granted partial EGT for the 2020-2021 and 2021 2022 academic years, which resulted in a pro-rated recovery of the Applicant鈥檚 EGT for the 2020-2021 academic year and the granting of half of his EGT for the 2021 2022 academic year.
Pursuant to staff regulation 3.2(a), staff rule 3.9(g), and sec. 9.1 of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the Applicant is entitled to one round trip for her daughter during each academic year between her educational institution and his...
The Applicant lost a significant portion of his annual leave balance because the Administration used that leave to address the period of unlawful separation. This ongoing injury is of sufficient collateral consequence to preclude mootness despite the partial reversal of the direct effects of the contested decision. Thus, even if the Applicant was reinstated, there remained a live controversy between the parties and as such, the application is not moot.
The contested decision in the case at hand is the non-renewal decision. There is no separate litigation of the decision to charge absence to...
The UNAT held that the UNDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration鈥檚 conclusion that the staff member鈥檚 performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board鈥檚 confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the UNAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management鈥檚 prior informal evaluation of the staff member鈥檚 performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...
While regrettably there is neither an eyewitness to the physical assault in question nor any security camera that could have captured the assault on video, the complainant provided, under oath, a detailed and coherent account of the physical assault in question, the circumstances leading to it and its aftermath. His account of the physical assault and subsequent events is corroborated by other witnesses鈥 testimonies, the documentary evidence and/or the Applicant鈥檚 contemporaneous behaviour, i.e., his attempt to bring some soft drinks to the complainant a few hours after the physical assault...
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 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鈥檚 Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal鈥檚 jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.
It is within the discretion of the Applicant鈥檚 SRO to make comments on her performance. 鈥淸M]aking comments in an ePAS about the need for a staff member to improve performance in certain core values and competencies is an important tool for the managers to carry out their functions in the interest of the Organization and, hence, their willingness to do so need to be supported and boosted鈥. It represents a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees.
The comments in question do not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal. They are constructive...
In summary, the Tribunal finds that in this recruitment exercise, the proper procedures were followed, the Applicant鈥檚 candidacy was given full and fair consideration, the applicable regulations and rules were applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, and the OHCHR High Commissioner properly exercised her discretion in making the selection decision.
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鈥 decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.
Neither the allegations memorandum nor the sanction...
The allegations that the Applicant improperly used his UNDP-issued laptop to access websites that contained pornography and other sexually explicit material and advertised escort services, has been established by clear and convincing evidence based on the investigations forensic report of his computer, the Applicant's partial admittance and several contradictions.There is also clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in three instances of unauthorised outside activities by being the Director and major shareholder of a company, and engaging in other business ventures in...
The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.
There is sufficient documentary evidence on record showing that the Applicant was properly made aware of the performance shortcomings he needed to address and improve. He was placed on a PIP that was structured and designed specifically for him, and he was provided with adequate support and guidance to improve.
Having identified, documented, and addressed the Applicant鈥檚 performance shortcomings through the applicable rules, the decision not to renew his FTA based on unsatisfactory service, taken after the Applicant was found not to have improved his performance despite being given the...
Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal
The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG did not constitute an express promise to renew the Applicant鈥檚 fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing.
There is no evidence of a firm commitment to renew the Applicant鈥檚 fixed-term appointment. While the Applicant sought to rely on the CITO/ASG鈥檚 verbal statements in March...
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 鈥渟tacked鈥.
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...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration鈥檚 position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant鈥檚 claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal鈥檚 findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration鈥檚 position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant鈥檚 claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal鈥檚 findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...