±¬ÁÏÍø

General verbal statements, which the Applicant asserts were made by his Fist Reporting Officer during team meetings, cannot constitute an express promise to renew his TA. More importantly, such verbal statements lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing to substantiate an expectation of renewal of his TA.

The Tribunal found that performance management procedures governed by ST/AI/2010/5 and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (±¬ÁÏÍøDP) on...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner.

The Tribunal also considered the merits of the Applicant¡¯s submissions in respect of the propriety of the impugned decision. The Applicant incurred expenses that were clearly communicated to him as unauthorised prior to his travel. There is nothing on the record to show that the decision was tainted, improperly made or otherwise unlawful. In other words, even if the application had been found to be receivable, it would...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified ±¬ÁÏÍøDP as the respondent in the present case because it was ±¬ÁÏÍøDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2023/036...

The investigation panel properly investigated 13 of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 113 of the Judgment). It did not however properly investigate six of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 115 of the Judgment).

Consequently, the responsible official acted on a partially defective report and the decision to close the case with managerial action cannot stand with respect to the complaints that were not properly investigated.

In view of the time lapse since the events in support of the Applicant¡¯s allegations that were not properly investigated occurred, the Tribunal does not find it...

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant¡¯s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the ±¬ÁÏÍøEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., ¡°a review of the review¡±. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendations...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the ±¬ÁÏÍø and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

In summary, the Tribunal finds that in this recruitment exercise, the proper procedures were followed, the Applicant¡¯s candidacy was given full and fair consideration, the applicable regulations and rules were applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, and the OHCHR High Commissioner properly exercised her discretion in making the selection decision.