̽����ѡ

1. In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...

The facts in support of both counts leveled against the Applicant (count 1: creating a hostile, offensive and humiliating work environment for one staff member and count 2: abuse of authority concerning the recruitment and employment of a consultant) have been established in the case at hand not only by preponderance of evidence, the applicable threshold, but also by clear and convincing evidence. The established facts were in violation of the applicable legal framework, namely ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/AI/2013/4. Cases involving the creation of a hostile and offensive work environment have...

The Tribunal found that documentary evidence, including at least two instances of consecutive transactions for materially impossible refueling on 16 February 2017 and on 17 May 2017, confirmed the Applicant’s participation in the fraudulent fuel scheme and his submission of falsified documents. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant improperly used United Nations property for his personal gain in a matter...

In sum, based on the record on file and the oral evidence provided at the hearing held on 12-14 October 2021, the Tribunal finds that it is established that the Applicant slapped MK on 25 November 2016 but the rest of the allegations by MK are not established. Since it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant slapped MK, the established facts amount to misconduct. Considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct, mitigating circumstances that the Administration took into account, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable...

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant failed to uphold the highest standard of integrity. She was in a position of influence and authority by way of her position with the Organization, and she played a significant role in the awarding of the contract to a vendor, and by repeatedly suggesting and inquiring about the possibility of hiring her brother and her other candidates, she placed undue pressure on the vendor to accede to her requests.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant, on several occasions before and after completion of contractual arrangements with a vendor...

Pursuant to art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and to established jurisprudence, the Tribunal can choose to issue a summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties as the Tribunal’s Statute prevents it from receiving a case that is not receivable. Likewise, art. 19 provides that it may issue any order or direction that is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. In addition, such provision allows the Tribunal to deal with issues of receivability as a preliminary matter in the interest of judicial economy. Therefore, the Tribunal can...

In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...

The Applicant did not request the complainant's testimony and therefore waived his right to cross-examine her despite being allowed the opportunity to make such request in due course during these proceedings. The complainant’s account remained detailed, coherent and consistent in her complaint and in the interview with the investigators. It was also largely corroborated by the statement of the colleague to whom she promptly reported the incident.The Tribunal also notes the absence of any evidence suggesting ill-motive on the side of the complainant. This evidence meets the standards laid out...

In the present case, in the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, he explicitly “reserved” the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant’s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...