Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

When the Applicant sought management evaluation of the imposition of a condition to the extension of his fixed-term appointment, he did not contest the actual non-extension of his appointment which was yet to be taken at that time. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment before he filed the present application. Accordingly, any appeal of the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment would not be receivable ratione materiae. The imposition of the condition of resignation did not in itself have a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s...

In sum, based on the record on file and the oral evidence provided at the hearing held on 12-14 October 2021, the Tribunal finds that it is established that the Applicant slapped MK on 25 November 2016 but the rest of the allegations by MK are not established. Since it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant slapped MK, the established facts amount to misconduct. Considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, mitigating circumstances that the Administration took into account, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable...

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...

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 applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Outcome: Application was rejected.