2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1448, Ray Steven Millan
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...
2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1451-Corr.1, Cevat Ozturk
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found...
086 (NY/2024), Sinha
The Tribunal ordered the parties to produce consolidated lists of agreed and disputed facts to enable it understand the factual issues at stake.
The Tribunal also ordered the parties to indicate what additional documentaton they requested to be disclosed, and the identities of any witnesses they wished to call, specifying what disputed facts the witnesses would testify about.
2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1447, Iyofe Christine Isasi
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Mr. Kankwenda, a late participant in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµJSPF, married another individual, Ms. M.T., in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1971. This fact, which Ms. Isasi herself did not contest, was supported by a marriage certificate and was consistent with the information regarding the dates of birth of Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s children and the identities of their mothers. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT highlighted that Ms. Isasi admitted that the two marriage certificates she submitted after Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s death, purportedly showing their marriage on 17 January 1971, were falsified, undermining her...
2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1446, Ashok Kumar Nigam
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that, since Mr. Nigam based his interlocutory appeal on alleged errors of fact and law by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Judge President, with no allegation of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT acting extra-jurisdictionally or similarly in excess of its jurisdiction, he must wait to exercise his right of appeal until a final decision has been made.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT concluded that an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Judgment contained neither any indication of bias by Judge Belle against Mr. Nigam, nor any criticism beyond what a reasonably informed observer might expect from a partly erroneous judgment and its subsequent appellate review.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT...
570 (2024), Abdurrahman Turk
- Appealed
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General¡¯s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...
2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1445, Moner Ahmed Nasser
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the application for revision.
Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted...
568 (2024), Ivan Aguilar Valle
- Appealed
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found, however, that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2024/043, Santambrogio
Receivability
The Tribunal found that to the extent the Applicant challenged the legal framework of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµHCR, and requested the removal of a part of para. 34 of the Recruitment and Assignments Policy, her application was not receivable ratione materiae. The application was only receivable concerning the decision not to select the Applicant for the G-7 position of Senior Resource Management Associate, Addressing SEA and SH.
Merits
Whether the applicable procedures were properly followed
First, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant¡¯s argument concerning the alleged forgery of the document...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2024/041, Dhindsa
The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.
The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant¡¯s intent was to file an application...