Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes que le demandeur a utilis¨¦ sa position d'autorit¨¦ pour influencer ind?ment l'emploi continu de FM ¨¤ Gitts, Minusca. Le fait que le demandeur n'ait pas divulgu¨¦ un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts r¨¦sultant de sa relation sexuelle avec FM et de sa participation continue ¨¤ son recrutement ¨¤ Gitts, Minusca a ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦e par des preuves claires et convaincantes. Le demandeur a envoy¨¦ des questions d'entrevue au plaignant, et il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes que le demandeur a utilis¨¦ sa position d'autorit¨¦ en tant que chef de Gitts, Minusca, pour...

Le tribunal a constat¨¦ qu'il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes que le demandeur avait commis l'inconduite se plaignait et que les faits ¨¦tablis consid¨¦raient comme faute en vertu des r¨¨glements et r¨¨gles du personnel, en outre, la sanction ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e ¨¤ l'infraction et ¨¦tait donc l¨¦gale. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas de violations de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re dans l'enqu¨ºte et dans le processus disciplinaire menant ¨¤ la sanction disciplinaire contre le demandeur. Le degr¨¦ de sensibilit¨¦ de l'inconduite pr¨¦sum¨¦e ne constituait pas une circonstance...

Les faits ¨¦tablis ont ¨¦t¨¦ qualifi¨¦s de faute en vertu des r¨¨glements et r¨¨gles du personnel. Il y avait des preuves que la totalit¨¦ des circonstances, notamment des facteurs att¨¦nuants tels que le long service du demandeur aupr¨¨s de l'organisation et son admission, bien qu'apr¨¨s la d¨¦couverte de sa fraude par l'organisation, ont ¨¦t¨¦ examin¨¦s conform¨¦ment aux principes d¨¦finis. Il y avait une base pour l'affirmation selon laquelle la pratique du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral en mati¨¨re disciplinaire montre que les mesures ¨¤ l'extr¨¦mit¨¦ plus stricte du spectre ont normalement ¨¦t¨¦ impos¨¦es par l...

L'argument de l'intim¨¦ selon lequel le demandeur n'a pas demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la direction de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e dans les 60 jours a ¨¦t¨¦ enracin¨¦e dans la conviction erron¨¦e que le protocole d'accord, qui d¨¦clare express¨¦ment qu'elle constituait un avis que la nomination du demandeur ne serait pas renouvel¨¦e au-del¨¤ du 29 f¨¦vrier 2020 et qu'elle serait s¨¦par¨¦ en cons¨¦quence, li¨¦ au droit g¨¦n¨¦ral des demandeurs d'¨ºtre r¨¦absorb¨¦ en moins. Le droit ¨¤ un privil¨¨ge g¨¦n¨¦ral est intrins¨¨que ¨¤ un d¨¦tachement, ce qui signifie qu'il est inali¨¦nable et que le demandeur n'aurait donc pas pu s'en...

La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e est n¨¦e d'un accord sign¨¦ le 21 avril 2020 entre le demandeur et l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF pour r¨¦silier sa nomination. Si la requ¨¦rante avait souhait¨¦ contester les circonstances de son accord de licenciement, elle aurait d? demander l'¨¦valuation de la direction d'ici le 20 juin 2020. Elle a toutefois soumis sa demande le 18 janvier 2021, pr¨¨s de sept mois plus tard et en dehors de la p¨¦riode de 60 jours. La demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion a ¨¦t¨¦ barr¨¦e dans le temps et donc la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir.

The Tribunal ruled that the assertion that the Applicant was entitled to automatic appointment since he had a continuous appointment and was on the roster for Senior Transport Officer, P-5 was without basis. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the obligation under staff rule 9.6(e) is only triggered where there has been a decision to terminate a staff member¡¯s appointment due to the abolition of a post or the reduction of staff. The Tribunal found that the provisions of staff rule 9.6(e) were not applicable to the circumstances of this case and could therefore not be complied with...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager¡¯s actions has been rebutted and that...

That the Applicant chose to obtain the documents outside the Tribunal process must be frowned upon. Because of the method the Applicant used to obtain the documents, their authenticity let alone their probative value cannot be guaranteed. The documents in issue were therefore ruled inadmissible. The Tribunal held that the ALWOP decision was based on the criteria set out in section 11.4 b of ST/AI/2017/1. In the Tribunal¡¯s view, based on the nature of the allegations (the public engagement in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle in a heavily trafficked area of Tel...

Article 18.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure provides that a party wishing to submit evidence that is in the possession of the opposing party or of any other entity may, in the initial application or at any stage of the proceedings, request the Dispute Tribunal to order the production of the evidence. That the Applicant chose to obtain the documents outside the Tribunal process must be frowned upon. Because of the method the Applicant used to obtain the documents, their authenticity let alone their probative value cannot be guaranteed. The documents in issued were therefore ruled inadmissible...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The application was not receivable ratione temporis because it should have been filed on or before 11 November 2021 but was filed on 1 December 2021.

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

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...

There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant used his position of authority to unduly influence the continued employment of FM at GITTS, MINUSCA. The fact that the Applicant failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from his sexual relationship with FM and his continued involvement in her recruitment at GITTS, MINUSCA were proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Applicant sent interview questions to the complainant, and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant used his position of authority as Chief of GITTS, MINUSCA, to unduly influence the...

The Applicant¡¯s supervisor did not participate in the selection process for the four Representative positions in Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Bolivia and Nigeria, and for the position of Chief Gender and Human Rights. The Applicant¡¯s Supervisor¡¯s participation in the selection process for the Palestine position did not affect the integrity of the selection process. The Applicant was given full and fair consideration. The fact that the Rotation exercise and selection decisions for the positions in Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Nigeria and Palestine and the relevant Ethics Units determination and recommendation...

The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant. The degree of sensitivity of the alleged misconduct did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting...

The Respondent¡¯s argument that the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within 60 days was rooted in the erroneous belief that the MOU, which expressly states that it constituted notice that the Applicant¡¯s appointment would not be renewed beyond 29 February 2020 and that she would be separated as a result, related to the Applicants general right to be reabsorbed into MINUSMA. The right to a general lien is intrinsic to a secondment, meaning that it is inalienable and so the Applicant could not have contracted herself out of it. The notice of separation and...

The established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. There was evidence that the totality of the circumstances, including mitigating factors such as the Applicant¡¯s long service with the Organization and her admission, albeit only after the Organization¡¯s discovery of her fraud, were considered in keeping with set principles. There was basis for the assertion that the practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters shows that measures at the stricter end of the spectrum have normally been imposed by the Organization in cases involving falsification of...

The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s right to a full and fair consideration of his candidature was not violated. It was thus held that the Applicant¡¯s allegation that the selection process was tainted by extraneous considerations, ill-motive and bias not borne out in evidence. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.