Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

A lack of cooperation is not always a relevant circumstance in every case to be taken as aggravating factor. Sometimes, if the lack of cooperation is not serious, it may not be taken as an aggravating circumstance. However, the nature of the case may affect how lack of cooperation during an investigation is viewed. Being dishonest and misleading during the investigation may be considered serious and be taken as a ground of aggravation. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a lack of cooperation can never be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

While the Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that there was also...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

The undisputed facts are unambiguous and leave little room for different interpretations. An apology does not invalidate or undo the misconduct. The fact that the Applicant was not made aware of the negative impact of her practice has no relevance for the factual determination. As such, the Administration has established the facts underlying the disciplinary measure in question by preponderance of evidence.

The Applicant using expletives towards her subordinates and widely addressing her colleagues by nicknames in the workplace were compounded by her ignoring personal and professional...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., ¡°a review of the review¡±. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendations...

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant¡¯s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

The investigation panel properly investigated 13 of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 113 of the Judgment). It did not however properly investigate six of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 115 of the Judgment).

Consequently, the responsible official acted on a partially defective report and the decision to close the case with managerial action cannot stand with respect to the complaints that were not properly investigated.

In view of the time lapse since the events in support of the Applicant¡¯s allegations that were not properly investigated occurred, the Tribunal does not find it...