Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first rejected his contention...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member...

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present. The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute...

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.

In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ¡®sexual molestation¡¯, constitute ¡®serious misconduct¡¯ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.

Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...

The Applicant¡¯s 16 September 2023 request for management evaluation was not filed in a timely manner as it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c). There was, however, no issue of res judicata in the present case.

In the absence of any further information and/or evidence, DSS/SSS indeed acted within its scope of discretion under staff regulation 1.2(c) and art. 100.2 of the United Nations Charter, when deciding not to take any further action on the Applicant¡¯s request for action regarding his complaint concerning the relevant law enforcement agency.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP) on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...