The 蘑菇视频AT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the 蘑菇视频AT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri’s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...
The Tribunal held:
1. The Applicant repeatedly engaged in attempts of corruption by requesting money from at least six refugees in exchange for promising 蘑菇视频HCR services that should have been provided without charge. As a consequence, the decision to dismiss the Applicant was lawful.
2. The facts which the Applicant was accused of were proved in a consistent and unequivocal manner, and the Respondent fulfilled his burden to prove that the Applicant took bribes from some refuges, or at least that she asked for them.
3. The disciplinary measure was not based solely on anonymous statements...
The Tribunal DECIDES to deny the application in its entirety.
The Tribunal DECIDES that the Application is rejected.
The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had admitted his wrongdoing during his interview by the investigator. Accordingly, the Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed fraud, a prohibited conduct.
Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant committed fraud. Therefore, his actions amounted to serious misconduct.
On the due process prong, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s argument that his due process rights were violated because...
The Tribunal recalled that the regulatory framework on termination for facts anterior does not limit it to cases where there has been a proven prior factual finding of misconduct or a conviction of crime. What is required is that there must be a fact anterior that detracts from the suitability of the prospective recruit due to concerns of efficiency, competence, and integrity. The fact must be of so serious a nature that it would have precluded the staff member’s appointment if it had been disclosed to the Organization during the recruitment process.
In the instant case, the Tribunal...
[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant’s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent’s request for an award of costs.
The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.
The 蘑菇视频AT noted that the staff member’s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the 蘑菇视频AT found that the 蘑菇视频DT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent’s fees.
The 蘑菇视频AT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the...
Receivability
The Tribunal found that to the extent the Applicant challenged the legal framework of 蘑菇视频HCR, and requested the removal of a part of para. 34 of the Recruitment and Assignments Policy, her application was not receivable ratione materiae. The application was only receivable concerning the decision not to select the Applicant for the G-7 position of Senior Resource Management Associate, Addressing SEA and SH.
Merits
Whether the applicable procedures were properly followed
First, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant’s argument concerning the alleged forgery of the document...
