±¬ÁÏÍø

Mr. Nastase appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that it had not been established by evidence that the administrative decision to close his complaint was actuated by bias against him and was therefore unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Nastase's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the fact that in 2019, Mr. Nastase had filed a complaint against the CIOS alleging misconduct was unrelated to his performance issues. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that because these events were not part of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority in relation to his performance...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason why the Appeals Tribunal should intervene and modify the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings, which were both reasonable and equitable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while the hiring of the casual workers was not part of Mr. Saleh¡¯s official duties, Mr. Saleh coordinated and supervised the work of the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR implementing partner which was responsible for hiring at the warehouse, and Mr. Saleh also had the function of overseeing the warehousing operations. Given these responsibilities, as well as his previous intense involvement in the setting up and management of the warehouse, which...

The context of the case in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô is not similar. Essentially, in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant was the subject of an investigation, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was the complainant. Accordingly, In °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant opposed a disciplinary investigation launched against himself based on a misconduct complaint made by others, and he then contested a decision to reject his request for an independent review of the investigation. The Appeals Tribunal, however, dismissed the applicant¡¯s challenge because the decision-maker eventually held in his favour as, contrary to the preliminary...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found problematic the fact that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

The Secretary-General appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between ±¬ÁÏÍøDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided not to refer the ED of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was problematic because the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that Mr. Reiterer had committed the alleged misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Reiterer, namely that he violated ST/SGB/2008/5 concerning count one and ST/AI/2013/4 concerning count two. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that given the nature and the specific facts surrounding Mr. Reiterer¡¯s misconduct, the sanction of demotion by one grade with deferment, for one year, of eligibility for consideration for promotion, was not...

On anonymization Article 11.6 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute provides in its relevant part that its judgments shall be published while protecting personal data. A similar provision is contained in art. 26.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. Given that the present case relies on medical evidence to support a claim for moral harm, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to redact the Applicant¡¯s name from this judgment. On the merits Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded the following. First, the Tribunal found that the two charges against the Applicant were established as per...