Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the ¡°non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds¡±. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was ¡°due to lack of funds¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

Given the reputational risk inherent in any investigation, it was incumbent on the Applicant as a staff member applying for or occupying such a senior position as Head of the Country Office, to notify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA of the allegations, suspension and investigation. Considering the negative publicity that such a situation inevitably generates in the media, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA would have been justified in questioning the Applicant¡¯s suitability as a staff member in general and for the position of Country Representative in particular.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the facts anterior in this case were directly...

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/032. It also considered a cross-appeal by Ms. Hilaire-Madsen claiming that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have rescinded the Administration¡¯s non-renewal decision and awarded her alternative compensation as well as compensation for moral damages.

As regards the lawfulness of the non-renewal decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under the specific circumstances, at the material time of the contested non-renewal decision at the end of December 2018, from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer, with the information available at...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by applying the improper legal framework, the relevant legal framework not being ST/SGB/2008/5, but the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Disciplinary Framework and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Harassment Policy. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, being one of the separately administered funds of the Organization, has its own legal framework and is not regulated by the Secretariat¡¯s general administrative issuances such as ST/SGB/2008/5, unless otherwise stated or unless it has expressly accepted their applicability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it found that Mr. Toson¡¯s request...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal correctly reasoned that under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Disciplinary Framework, the assessment of the facts of misconduct is not exclusive to OAIS, but that the Director of the Department of Human Resources (Director/DHR) must also analyze the evidence, and such analysis could lead DHR to a different conclusion than that of OAIS. Accordingly, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Administration had the authority or locus standi to proceed with a disciplinary process even in the absence of a finding of misconduct by OAIS. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

It was crucial for the Tribunal to examine the relationship between the Applicant and the alleged victim of his behaviour. There was clear evidence of constant financial support to the complainant/victim. The Applicant built a relationship of trust with the complainant/victimthe where she was able to rely on him for support and was comfortable to meet with him outside of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Malawi Country Office. The victim was placed in a very vulnerable position. The abuse by the Applicant was not an isolated episode, as the Applicant is accused also for sexual assault and harassment in different...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had an obligation as a staff member to uphold the highest standards of integrity which include acting with honesty. In her submissions, she argued that she acted truthfully and with honesty. She gave reasons why she thought she could use Organization¡¯s assets for personal benefit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s justifications were not supported by any rule or regulation. She acted dishonestly in breach of integrity standards by using the Organization¡¯s UPS facility for personal benefit without any lawful justification. The Tribunal found that the...

The case was decided by a bench of three judges. The Majority decided to dismiss the application with one Judge dissenting. On whether the facts of the case were established, the Majority concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Majority concurred that the act of forcing sexual intercourse, by the Applicant on the Complainant-(i.e., rape), amounted to sexual abuse in a grave form and, as such, constituted a serious misconduct prescribed by staff regulation 10.1(b) and staff rule 1.2...