The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 20 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that clear and convincing evidence was obtained which was consistent with the Applicant’s sexually exploiting local women and the impugned decision was well-founded. The Applicant had claimed that he had given his username and password to other staff members therefore, he could not be attributed the accessing and storing of the material. The Tribunal did accept this. The Applicant admitted that he had downloaded and installed the cracked software that had caused pornographic material to appear on his computer. He neither named any person with whom he shared the password nor...
Receivability The Tribunal considered that the Applicant was not challenging individual non-selection decisions directly but rather challenged the Administration’s alleged failure to give her priority consideration for vacant posts before terminating her fixed-term appointment, which is required under staff rule 9.6(e) (see Timothy). Therefore, the Tribunal found the application receivable and examined the merits of the case. Restructuring process At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant worked as Humanitarian Affairs Officer (HAO) at the P-4 level. The Tribunal noted that, in OCHA...
The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.
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...
