Â鶹APP

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that his separation was unfair and that the Administration did not violate any term of the Applicant¡¯s contract of employment. The Applicant challenged the fact that he was separated on ground of retrenchment before the General Assembly had approved the Budget to abolish his post. The record showed that this issue was already adjudicated upon in favour of the Applicant under Order No. 086 (NBI/2019). In accordance with the Tribunal¡¯s earlier final finding on the matter, it...

The Applicant did not advance any exception to the rule that General Assembly resolutions may not be amenable to judicial review by the Tribunal. Those exceptions arise where the Secretary-General is mandated to interpret an ambiguous regulatory decision, to comply with procedures or where the implementation of the resolution involves application of a criteria. In the instant case, the Secretary-General¡¯s role in implementation of the resolution to abolish the P-4 Engineering position was mechanical and was not reviewable . In that regard, the Respondent was correct that that limb of the...

Since there was no formal notification of the results of the selection process to the Applicant, the internal circular suffices as the notice for purposes of lodging the challenge against the process. Time started running on the date that the Applicant read the internal circular that the position had been filled, conversely that he had not been successful. The Applicant complied with staff rule 11.2(c) by timely requesting management evaluation of his case. The Applicant¡¯s refusal to participate in the interview was not voluntary. The Applicant¡¯s grievances about the selection process were not...

The Tribunal finds that the recovery of CHF2,838 constituting financial loss occasioned to the Respondent through the Applicant¡¯s private phone calls is not a relevant consideration to the determination of the proportionality of the sanction. This is because the recovery is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 10.2(b)(ii) which expressly clarifies that recovery of monies owed to the Organisation is a not a disciplinary measure. The Applicant has failed to show that he deserves a more lenient sanction than the one imposed. His impecuniosity, resulting from the sanction is...

The Applicant has not shown that the negative employment decision had any direct adverse consequences on her contract. The Applicant¡¯s argument that the decision was used by the Administration not to renew her temporary employment is without merit. She has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim. On the contrary the Respondent has shown that the temporary employment expired at the end of the maximum 364 days offered in the contract. The Applicant has failed to convince the Tribunal that the decision not to renew her temporary employment was a direct consequence of the decision from...

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Applicant¡¯s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (¡°CRP¡¯). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...

The Tribunal finds that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have not been established. The decision is rescinded in accordance with art. 10(5)(a) of this Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Respondent may opt to pay compensation in lieu of rescission comprising her salary from the date of termination to the date when the Applicant would have retired from service. The Applicant has proved that she suffered moral damages and is awarded of two years¡¯ net base salary as damages for moral harm. The Applicant has also proved that she was over deducted by USD20, 987.91 causing her financial...

The Applicant¡¯s attempt to hug V01 did not on its own qualify as an unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favour or verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a sexual nature or any other behaviour of a sexual nature. The Applicant¡¯s asking for V01¡¯s room number on multiple occasions did not constitute sexual harassment. The facts did not establish sexual harassment as defined in ST/SGB/2008/5 and as interpreted in various jurisprudence. The Respondent¡¯s investigations were skewed toward finding a case for sexual harassment regardless of the inadequacy of evidence to substantiate the...

The Tribunal found that the decision to abolish the post of Senior Child Protection Officer in Darfur, Sudan is not subject to judicial review. That aspect of the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that the Administration did not act unlawfully by not renewing the Applicant¡¯s contract because the contract itself was clear that it was expiring on 31 December 2018. Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal.

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Administrative Services Division had...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Admiistrative Services Division had...

With regard to GJO No. 425940, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified on 19 February 2014 that his application had been unsuccessful. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision until over four years later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim relating to GJO No. 425940 was not receivable ratione materiae and it was dismissed. For GJO No. 76109, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that the Administration did not give his candidacy fair and adequate...

The Tribunal found that neither JA nor TA were refugees, or beneficiaries of UNHCR assistance or fell within the prohibitions stipulated in staff rule 1.2(e). The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations made against a staff member are conclusive evidence that the staff member was responsible for the reputational damage caused thereby to the Organization. The Applicant had no control over what the media chose to report. Hence, UNHCR basing its decision on these facts was unlawful as they were extraneous to the case at hand and irrelevant. The...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had shown and the Applicant had not disputed through clear and convincing evidence that all relevant regulations, rules, administrative issuances and policies were complied with in considering the Applicant¡¯s medical entitlements. There was no administrative decision carrying direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of appointment to adjudicate on, since subsequent to filing the application on 24 September 2018, the Applicant¡¯s claim were fully satisfied in November 2019. The Respondent having rescinded its decision...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.

The Tribunal found that because separation was not the sanction imposed on the Applicant, the applicable standard of proof was one on a preponderance of evidence. This standard was lower than clear and convincing evidence which the Respondent had to prove to show that the Applicant committed misconduct as alleged. It was evident from the facts that the Applicant and at least one other person led a group to the Complainant¡¯s house. The Applicant played an active role in the alleged harassment. This fact was proved to the requisite standard. The Tribunal found that a group of at least five local...

There was a final decision because the performance rating of ¡°partially satisfactory¡± became binding on the Applicant once the Rebuttal Panel issued its recommendation of 25 May 2018. The application, however, was not receivable because the Applicant failed to prove that there were direct legal consequences stemming from the Rebuttal Panel¡¯s decision.

The Tribunal found that there was clear and convincing evidence that between 7 and 10 December 2016, at his residence, the Applicant had sexual intercourse with one Congolese woman, V0. By his own admission during the investigation, the Applicant procured sexual services of V0 whom he had picked up from a bar where he had been drinking and paid her FC40,000 through an intermediary, Francois. The Tribunal held that based on strict interpretation of the applicable legal provisions, in particular, staff rule 1.2(e), it did not make any difference that money was requested and paid after the sexual...

The Respondent did not select the Applicant for GJO 71792 because he failed a competency-based interview. Passing a competency-based interview is a lawful requirement envisioned by art. 101.3 of the Â鶹APP Charter and set by the Staff Regulations and Rules that form an integral part of the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment. The Respondent complied with all the relevant statutory requirements in the selection process leading to the contested decision. It was clear from the jurisprudence that the Applicant¡¯s argument that the Administration should have considered his previous scores in...

The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the Tribunal. Thus management evaluation was a prerequisite. The application was filed out of time because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response as required by art. 8.1(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute.