Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

There being no matter for adjudication the case was closed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the Applicant was prepared to use his power and influence to make life in the United Nations difficult for the Complainant if she pursued her complaint against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that this evidence satisfied the clear and convincing requirement. The evidence also showed that, during the investigation, the Applicant was afforded the due process rights he was entitled to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the disciplinary action of summary dismissal in this matter was justified and proportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed this aspect of the Application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accepted the Applicant¡¯s witnesses¡¯ as evidence as relevant and admissible. The witnesses generally addressed theatmosphere in which the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA) staff in Abyei functioned, including the reaction of the principal chiefs of the Dinka tribe to policy changes which they did not like. This raised issues to be considered in assessing the complaints of Complainants 1 and 2. Complainants 1 and 2 did not sign or indicate the veracity of their statements. This failure to authenticate the statements created doubt as to the veracity of the statements...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant¡¯s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application challenging the OIOS¡¯ decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s allegation is misconceived. There was nothing to show that the decision being impunged in the Application was improperly taken, or that it was tainted by factors extraneous to the complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that OIOS acted properly in referring the matters complained about back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR for appropriate investigation and action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the Application as not receivable.

The Applicant did not show that the decision to not renew his appointment was tainted by improper motive or bias, or that the process leading up to the decision to abolish the post he encumbered was irregular or improper. The Respondent sufficiently demonstrated that the Mission acted appropriately under the circumstances before it.

The Applicant sought review of the impugned decision by the Management Evaluation Unit on 1 November 2019, but did not receive a response until 23 June 2020. The application was time barred.

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination ¡°on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners¡±. The scope of the ABCC¡¯s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above).; As convincingly explained by the Applicant¡¯s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it¡ªPTSD is per definition a post traumatic...