Â鶹APP

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...

The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The UNDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.

Considering that the Tribunal¡¯s competence is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply and even if not raised by the parties (see Gehr 2013-UNAT-313; Boutroue UNDT/2014/048), the Tribunal deems it appropriate to decide on the present application by way of summary judgment, as provided for in art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure. The Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Â鶹APP. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that WFP is not one of the...

Having examined the evidence on file, particularly the panel¡¯s investigation report and its annexes, the Tribunal is satisfied that OHCHR properly handled the Applicant¡¯s complaint against his FRO, and that the case record fully supports the reasonableness of the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against said FRO. The Tribunal further observes that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights as set forth in ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/AI/2017/1 were respected. The Applicant was inter alia interviewed and given an opportunity to provide his version of events and informed of the outcome of his...

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...

The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant¡¯s cases had been transferred to the UNDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. UNDT/2009/005.