Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...

This application does not meet the requirements of art. 12(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and art. 30 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. There is no need to clarify the meaning of Judgment Ocokoru Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/004 since it was fully implemented years ago. Furthermore, the grounds submitted by the Applicant as a basis for interpretation have already been clearly and unambiguously determined by this Tribunal previously. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...

The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.

Mr. Moulana appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵATnoted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by failing to address the Appellant¡¯s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by failing to specify whether the alleged misconduct of sexual exploitation had been established to the required evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence. Second, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in concluding that the victim was a vulnerable person, that Mr. Stefan was aware of her vulnerability, and that he sexually exploited her vulnerability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it made this finding without any independent or medical evidence, and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had relied on its own Internet research regarding various...

As long as the Temporary Job Opening had no impact on the Applicant¡¯s chances of selection, then an irregularity could not be relied upon as a basis for the selection process to be declared unlawful.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant cannot base his argument against the selection process in JO# 136259 by questioning the process in other matters which do not affect his case.

The Tribunal held that whilst the procedure spelt out in ST/AI/2010/3 was not followed, it was unable to see how this irregularity could have had any impact on the selection process.

The application was rejected as not receivable because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the contested decisions.

The allegations in the Applicant¡¯s complaint squarely [fell] in the realm of workplace disagreements about the normal exercise of managerial authority. Section 1.1 of ST/SGB/2019/8 states that ¡°[d]isagreement on work performance or on other work-related issues is normally not considered prohibited conduct and is not dealt with under the provisions of the present bulletin but in the context of performance management¡±. The responsible official¡¯s conclusion that it was unlikely that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case (section 5.5...

The Applicant was sanctioned for engaging in two types of misconduct: (i) sexually exploiting V01, and (ii) engaging in a misrepresentation to the Organization and a misappropriation of assets from the Organization regarding Family Emergency Leave from 22 until 27 July 2019. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; regarding the first sanction of sexually exploiting V01, the Tribunal concluded that based on the finding that the Applicant was aware of V01¡¯s vulnerability, the evidence that he continued to have sexual intercourse with her even at times when she had...