±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant cannot claim that the Administration had initiated a disciplinary process against her. The Applicant had no right to force the Administration to complete a disciplinary process against her. The Administration decided to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process in relation to the Applicant should she be employed with the Organization in the future. Therefore, as in Kennes, the Applicant¡¯s due process rights have not been violated. The note placed in the Applicant's Official Status File is merely informative in nature and does therefore have no impact on the...

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established With respect to Count One, the Tribunal finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant did not disclose his spouse¡¯s and his father in law¡¯s involvement with two ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF implementing partners, of which the Applicant was the responsible Programme Manager on behalf of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF. In his application, the Applicant does not dispute this fact either. Turning to Count Two, the Tribunal is convinced that the Applicant received a spouse dependency allowance to which he was not entitled. Moreover, the...

The Applicant did not appeal a final administrative decision carrying direct legal effects. The application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The contested decisions had no nexus with the Applicant's former employment with the Organization, the application was therefore not receivable ratione personae.

The Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable because the contested decision was made on 21 May 2020 and the Applicant requested management evaluation on 25 October 2020, based on a later decision by MONUSCO dated on 8 October 2020. The Tribunal held that the 8 October 2020 email did not reset the time line for requesting management evaluation because it was a reiteration of the 21 May 2020 decision. The Tribunal recalled that the Appeals Tribunal held that ¡°the reiteration of an administrative decision does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timelines; rather...

The Tribunal acknowledges that the 120-day deadline for OIOS to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory. However, the Tribunal is of the view that a departure from this deadline has to be just. Given the circumstances of the case, even if the 120-day deadline to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the delays and unjustified attempts to suspend or terminate the investigation in this case constitute an egregious violation of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1. By not initiating its investigation in due course, OIOS rendered itself unable to...

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...

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.

Given that the Tribunal already adjudicated the Applicant¡¯s claim, finding it not receivable ratione personae for lack of standing, the present application is not receivable. The Secretary-General¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not an appealable administrative decision.

The contested decision having been rescinded by the Administration was, therefore, not a final administrative decision capable of review by this Tribunal, which, consequently, can make no pronouncement as to its legality or as to any effects it may have caused. The Applicant¡¯s claim that the rescission of the contested decision constitutes an admission of its unlawfulness is without merit. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal notes that in this case, the Applicant does not claim any abuse of the current proceedings, nor does the Tribunal observe any such...