Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights had been respected, that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established and amounted to misconduct, and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the offence, and rejected the application. Misconduct: Under the relevant rules, misrepresentation, forgery or false certification in connection with an official claim or benefit¡ªwhich can include failure to disclose a fact material to that claim or benefit¡ªcan be ¡°wilful, reckless or grossly negligent¡±. Gross negligence is defined as ¡°an extreme or aggravated...

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge in relation to the decision to cancel his administrative leave (¡°AL¡±) was without merit. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence showed that the Applicant was placed on AL after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS had received allegations of intimidation, harassment and other misconduct against him in the Sudan office. The Applicant did not contest the decision to place him on AL but only the decision informing him that his AL had not been extended and that no disciplinary action was being taken against him regarding the allegations. Accordingly, the decision not to extend...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

The Tribunal dismissed the application. Whereas the Applicant contended, that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3 (Sick leave), his contract should have been extended beyond its expiry date, in order to allow him to avail himself of the right to exhaust his sick leave the Tribunal found that there was no evidence that (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provided for its applicability to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and that the Applicant did not show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS accepted the applicability of the policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the Applicant¡¯s contention that it was unlawful to separate him from service...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

The Tribunal held that the evidence before it showed that the Applicant had signed a contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS governed by the terms and conditions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Individual Contractor Agreement which, among others, provided that the Applicant had a status of an independent contractor, and was not to be regarded, for any purpose, as a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the United Nations. Therefore, the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the United Nations, had no locus standi before the Tribunal. As a result, the application was struck out as being not...

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the applications irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.