Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant was not notified of any indebtedness to the Organization or called upon to settle it, as required by ST/AI/155/Rev.2. The initial withholding did not have the required authorization in the USG/Management¡¯s decision; rather, it was applied in an arbitrary and obscure fashion, with the Applicant learning of it only by the fact that the pension was not forthcoming. It was apparent that, starting with the irregularity of not informing the Applicant of the withholding decision for two months following his separation, the Administration had not seriously undertaken to establish either...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation.

Since there was no formal notification of the results of the selection process to the Applicant, the internal circular suffices as the notice for purposes of lodging the challenge against the process. Time started running on the date that the Applicant read the internal circular that the position had been filled, conversely that he had not been successful. The Applicant complied with staff rule 11.2(c) by timely requesting management evaluation of his case. The Applicant¡¯s refusal to participate in the interview was not voluntary. The Applicant¡¯s grievances about the selection process were not...

Having reviewed the record, the Tribunal concluded that proper procedures were followed during the selection exercise and that the Applicant received full and fair consideration for the TJO# 136259. The record showed that the Applicant was shortlisted and invited for the interview and was subsequently recommended by the hiring manager to the Head of Mission for selection. However, the hiring manager proposed another candidate for selection as the most suitable candidate because that other candidate had received a higher rating for the competencies of Planning and Organizing and Client...

The Applicant consistently admitted that the verbal and physical altercation took place and that he damaged the officer¡¯s umbrella. He only challenged the investigation process which he maintained was biased and unfair since it didn¡¯t consider the context of the interaction. He also complained that the most pertinent aspects of the case which were caught on video were never provided to him and he therefore didn¡¯t speak to them in the context of the investigation. Since the Applicant did not deny that he was involved in a verbal and physical altercation with a Kenyan police officer and that he...

The Tribunal found that V01 was a credible witness. Her testimony was taken independently, bearing in mind all the circumstances, and established the facts that sexual exploitation and abuse took place. The Tribunal found W01 a credible witness, her testimony relating to the first incident which she resolved informally with the Applicant was consistent with and corroborated V01¡¯s testimony. The Applicant did not successfully discredit this testimony. The Tribunal found that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. The Applicant engaged in sexual...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not established that she fit in any of the three categories enunciated in the Statute. She could not sue as a staff member because she was not, and she could not sue as a former staff member because the claim had no relation to her contractual status. The Tribunal having found that the Applicant was not the decedent¡¯s widow, she was not entitled to the benefits in any capacity. The Applicant had no standing ratione personae.

The Tribunal recalled that a former staff member has access to the Dispute Tribunal only in respect of an administrative decision affecting the terms of his or her former appointment or contract. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing the application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

The Applicant became aware of her de-rostering in 2017 and it became apparent in 2020, after three years of enquiries that she was in fact de-rostered. She only requested management evaluation on 6 June 2021, several months beyond the 60-day deadline. The Tribunal also found that the impugned decision did not constitute an "administrative decision" as defined in United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2003). The change of rostering status complained of did not involve a final decision taken with direct legal consequences for the Applicant¡¯s rights and obligations...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. With regard to ratione temporis, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 31 May 2019. She then ought to have requested management evaluation by 30 July 2019. She however, submitted her request on 30 December 2019, five months late, and outside the 60-day period. The Tribunal thus held that her request for management evaluation was time-barred and therefore, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not competent to...