Â鶹APP

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 first contested decision ¨C the ICSC refusal to address the Applicant¡¯s request for payment of compensation for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the ISCS Chair is moot because the current Chair of the ICSC eventually responded to the Applicant¡¯s request. The Chair of the ICSC is not staff of the Secretariat and therefore falls outside the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5, or the Staff Regulations and Rules. The ICSC decision not to compensate the Applicant for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the former Chair (second contested decision) is not attributable to the Secretary...

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...

These positions to which the Applicant applied required specialized work experience which the Applicant did not have. The Administration reasonably concluded that the Applicant did not meet the minimum work experience required for these respective positions. Potential vacant posts likely to be created by an upcoming restructuring plan are not considered available posts. The Administration lawfully did not consider the Applicant for any potential vacant post. The Administration reviewed the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the positions he applied for and lawfully determined that he did not meet the...

The Applicant¡¯s professional counsel, by his own admission, was well aware that the Applicant would not be able to meet the filing deadline as he encountered difficulties in getting instructions from her. Contrary to his assertion, it was his professional duty to promptly notify the Tribunal and request relief. However, he failed not only to promptly inform the Tribunal of his client¡¯s inability to meet the deadline but also to provide any reason for it in the application itself. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances prevented the Applicant from timely...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had imposed a harsher sanction on the Applicant than was necessary. The sanction was found to be disproportionate and manifestly abusive in relation to the circumstances faced by the Applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to replace the original disciplinary sanction for another one with less gravity, namely-separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity.

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 noted that there was no evidence that UNOPS Administration approved the Applicant¡¯s sick leave. Therefore, given that the Applicant was separated from service effective 31 March 2018 and that no sick leave beyond that date had been approved by the UNOPS Administration, the Tribunal found that there was no sick leave to ¡°terminate or retract¡± as claimed by the Applicant. Having said the above, the Tribunal found that the effective content of the challenged decision communicated to the Applicant on 5 April 2018 concerned the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment for the sole...

The legal issue for determination in the present case is whether UNOPS was under an obligation to extend a fixed-term appointment for the sole purpose of allowing a staff member to utilize his or her sick leave entitlement. The answer is negative, as the Tribunal found that there was no evidence in the case file to conclude that the legal framework of UNOPS included such obligation. Neither Staff rule 6.2(a) nor UNOPS Operational Directive OD.PCG.2017.01 on Human Resources, Ethics and Culture (in effect as of 15 August 2017) contain any obligation for the Administration to extend a staff...

The Tribunal found the Respondent¡¯s explanation for extending the Applicant¡¯s FTA for one month plausible. It thus held that the impugned decision was not unlawful.