Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability; The application is receivable ratione personae. After accepting the offer of employment, the Applicant effectively started to perform the functions of Senior Economic Affairs; Officer, ECE, on 1 May 2017. The Organization thus treated him like a staff member, although he was not eligible to apply and be selected for the position and no letter of appointment was signed. As a result, the Applicant is legitimately entitled to rights similar to those afforded to staff members, for the purpose of being granted access to the internal justice system of the United Nations.; Merits; The...

The Tribunal found that clear and convincing evidence was obtained which was consistent with the Applicant¡¯s sexually exploiting local women and the impugned decision was well-founded. The Applicant had claimed that he had given his username and password to other staff members therefore, he could not be attributed the accessing and storing of the material. The Tribunal did accept this. The Applicant admitted that he had downloaded and installed the cracked software that had caused pornographic material to appear on his computer. He neither named any person with whom he shared the password nor...

Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s contentions, the contested administrative decisions were not disciplinary measures imposed pursuant to the applicable legal procedures in ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The Applicant became aware of this as evidenced by his subsequent request for management evaluation of 23 November 2018. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable. It was filed without having first been submitted to management evaluation. The Applicant had to await the result of his management evaluation dated 23 November 2018 (or expiry of...

Since the Applicant withdrew his application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Following careful review of the facts as they appear in the pleadings, and the accompanying documentary evidence, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the presumption of regularity in the selection process has been or should be rebutted. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent acted improperly in selecting the recommended candidate, or that he was motivated by any extraneous factors in not selecting the Applicant.; The Applicant was given full and fair consideration and the selection decision was proper and lawful.

The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...

The application was moot because the contested decision was effectively rescinded and superseded by subsequent renewals of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.

Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant¡¯s dispute with ICAO.