Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s claims of fraudulent manipulation of his electronic leave records failed for want of proof.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by leaving crucial factual issues unresolved, which made it impossible to determine the appeal fully. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the tables summarizing the staff member¡¯s sick leave records were not hearsay but qualified as business records entitled to a presumption of accuracy unless rebutted. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that these records were accurate and noted unresolved inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu¡¯s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent¡¯s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General¡¯s witnesses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation¡¯s findings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT endorsed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the decision to issue a press release in response to allegations that OHCHR had endangered the lives of Chinese human rights defenders who attended the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2013 fell within the discretion of the Organization and was a managerial prerogative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific part of it which concerned the issue of the provision of names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government fell outside the scope of its judicial review due to the general nature of its content and to the fact that it embodied a...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found problematic the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...