Â鶹APP

The Tribunal found that the Administration did not respect its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(i) and 9.6(f) to retain the Applicant and the Applicant¡¯s correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G7 step 10) or at a lower level in UNHCR NY, or at her Professional level or lower in the parent Organization. The Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s claim in part, rescinding the contested decision and ordering the Respondent to retain the Applicant with retroactive effect from 31 December 2016 in any current suitable available post(s), or in alternative, the...

Discretion of investigators: Duly authorised investigators have a discretion to determine the information that they deem relevant to gather and probe further. However, such discretion is not unfettered. Investigations must be conducted in a fair, balanced and impartial manner.

Admissibility and value of evidence: Circumstantial evidence, as well as hearsay, are admissible in the Organization¡¯s internal justice system. However, their probative value is more limited than that of direct evidence. Mere statements of witnesses holding that the Applicant had engaged in other instances in behavior...

Due process rights: Disciplinary proceedings are of an administrative and not of a criminal nature, hence criminal law procedures do not apply. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights are contained in the relevant administrative issuances, under which rights such as the right to counsel and to be informed about the charges against him do only apply as of the moment the disciplinary procedure is initiated (charge letter), but not at the stage of the preliminary investigation. The right to cross examine witnesses does not apply at any stage of the administrative procedure, but only once the case is...

The best interests of UNHCR were clearly not served by the removal of the Applicant. It is unfortUNATe that some members of the UNHCR senior management sought to hide behind the veil of acting in the Organization¡¯s best interests to act in their own self-interest. The Tribunal therefore found on that score that the Respondent¡¯s explanation were a mere afterthought which was only spun to defend an action that was clearly lacking in due process and constituted an unfair and highhanded removal of the Applicant and abuse of official discretion. The Tribunal was not in any doubt that the removal of...

The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that its authority to suspend or waive the time limits set forth in art. 8.3 of the UNDT Statute did not extend to deadlines for management evaluation. These deadlines cannot be waived notwithstanding whether the failing of the deadline would have been occasioned by confusing information received from the Administration. As provided in staff rule 11.2(c), the deadline for requesting management evaluation may only be extended by the Secretary-General pending efforts for informal resolution conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, under conditions specified...

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. As the conditions for reimbursement and the extent of the coverage are detailed in the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±) Rules, the Tribunal¡¯s role essentially consisted in examining whether UNHCR committed any error, in law or in fact, in the interpretation or the application of these rules.; The Tribunal identified the following issues:; Was the Applicant entitled to the benefit of the stop-loss provision?; The Tribunal...

It was not disputed that the procedural flaws identified by Judgment Rodriguez-Viquez UNDT/2016/030 in respect of the Second Round of the 2013 Promotions Session for candidates for promotion to the P-5 level also vitiated the consideration of candidates to the D-1 level and thus impacted on the Applicant¡¯s chances to be promoted. The Tribunal noted that it was difficult to ascertain the chances that the Applicant had to be promoted but it was uncontested that they were significant. The Tribunal thus rescinded the contested decision. The Tribunal referred to Rodriguez-Viquez whereby the...

The Applicant¡¯s allegations of abuse of power arose from an understandable and reasonable suspicion but are not substantiated by the evidence heard by the Tribunal.; The re-advertisement of the contested position including a description of the operational context does not constitute a procedural flaw and the explanations provided are sufficient to conclude that it was not prompted by an ulterior motive.; The Applicant has not demonstrated that he was subjected to a detriment by any procedural or substantive error in respect of the first advertised JO. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant, an individual contractor, did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants under art. 3.1 of its Statute. Noting that individual contractors are not staff members, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing and, consequently, that the application was not receivable ratione personae.

The parties were at odds as to the procedure for establishing a medical board under art. 17 of Appendix D. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the ABCC failed to adhere to art. 17(b) of former Appendix D because it failed to establish a medical board to consider and report on the medical aspects of his claim. The Respondent submitted that the onus was on the Applicant to request the establishment of a medical board and to nominate a medical practitioner to represent him on the medical board. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s submission that the Applicant was obliged to request a medical board...