Â鶹APP

The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his claim that the Respondent was biased towards him and nothing in the case record suggests otherwise. His contention therefore fails.

The UNDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office¡¯s failures and/or...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not identified any detrimental effects on him caused by the combination of the selection processes established or that he was; misled by the combined process.;. The Applicant did not meet one of the job requirements, therefore, he had no expectation of being selected against the posts.; In the absence of any prospect of being selected for the Posts, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not established that he suffered any harm from being considered along with other candidates.; Nothing on the record suggests that any of the questions that the...

The Tribunal held that since summary dismissal/termination may have been the possible outcome at the end of the disciplinary process, the Respondent had to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the daily casual worker (Mary) was transferred to MovCon as a result of the alleged sexual relationship between her and the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were not established and that the facts which were established did not legally amount to misconduct under the Regulations and Rules of the Â鶹APP. Consequently, the...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

Confirmatory decisions: Confirmatory decision do not have the effect of reopening the time limits for formal contestation, as the said time limits run from the time the original decision was notified to the concerned staff member.Future disputes: It is not for the Tribunal to pronounce itself on forthcoming disputes.Outcome:Application rejected on receivability

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

Compensation under Appendix D as opposed to liability for a breach of terms of appointment/contractual obligations: Appendix D to the Staff Rules sets a regime of objective responsibility in the event of death, injury or illness attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the Â鶹APP, by which the Organization is to afford compensation regardless of whether it bears any fault in the matter. Where the compensation claimed by a staff member is compensation that relates to a violation of one of the terms of the staff member¡¯s employment or is contractual in nature...