Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.

Considering that the Tribunal¡¯s competence is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply and even if not raised by the parties (see Gehr 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-313; Boutroue Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/048), the Tribunal deems it appropriate to decide on the present application by way of summary judgment, as provided for in art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure. The Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that WFP is not one of the...

The Applicant did not request the complainant's testimony and therefore waived his right to cross-examine her despite being allowed the opportunity to make such request in due course during these proceedings. The complainant¡¯s account remained detailed, coherent and consistent in her complaint and in the interview with the investigators. It was also largely corroborated by the statement of the colleague to whom she promptly reported the incident.The Tribunal also notes the absence of any evidence suggesting ill-motive on the side of the complainant. This evidence meets the standards laid out...

1. In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...

Pursuant to art. 9 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure and to established jurisprudence, the Tribunal can choose to issue a summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties as the Tribunal¡¯s Statute prevents it from receiving a case that is not receivable. Likewise, art. 19 provides that it may issue any order or direction that is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. In addition, such provision allows the Tribunal to deal with issues of receivability as a preliminary matter in the interest of judicial economy. Therefore, the Tribunal can...

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant failed to uphold the highest standard of integrity. She was in a position of influence and authority by way of her position with the Organization, and she played a significant role in the awarding of the contract to a vendor, and by repeatedly suggesting and inquiring about the possibility of hiring her brother and her other candidates, she placed undue pressure on the vendor to accede to her requests.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant, on several occasions before and after completion of contractual arrangements with a vendor...

In the present case, in the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, he explicitly ¡°reserved¡± the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant¡¯s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...

- The contested decision is receivable because it affected the Applicant¡¯s conditions of employment, and was the object of a timely management evaluation request. - There is no evidence on record that OAI¡¯s investigation of the complaints against the Applicant was mishandled. In the circumstences surrounding the investigation, there were no unreasonable decisions made which were contrary to OAI¡¯s Investigation Guidelines. The Applicant had his opportunity to refute all the allegations made, to question the circumstances and motivation behind the allegations, which he did. OAI¡¯s decision that...

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican¡¯s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...