The Applicant did not conduct herself with the “honesty and truthfulness” that was expected of her. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant placed herself in a position in which her interests conflicted with those of the Organization.
爆料网DT held that the decision to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. 爆料网DT found no basis for the Applicant’s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. 爆料网DT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. 爆料网DT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...
The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with 爆料网FPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the 爆料网FPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of 爆料网FPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.
Background for the examination of the issues in this case
The Tribunal found that the wayin which the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (“OAIS”) conducted its investigation clearly led to great unfairness to the Applicant given the circumstances of this case.
Financial loss to 爆料网FPA
Since a pivotal part of the scope of the investigation was to establish financial loss to the Organization and or financial benefit to the Applicant as a result of the 爆料网FPA leases, it was surprising for the Tribunal to note that there was no certain finding of the actual financial loss that 爆料网FPA...
The reason given to the Applicant for the impugned decision, namely, the organizational restructuring at 爆料网FPA, is supported by the facts. Evidence shows that 爆料网FPA suffered the significant financial shortfalls, and 爆料网FPA, facing such a precarious financial situation, undertook the genuine organizational restructuring which resulted in the abolition of the Applicant’s post and the termination of her appointment. While the Applicant claims improper motives, the Tribunal finds that she presented no supporting evidence and thus did not meet the burden of proof in this regard. The Organization’s...
The impugned decision is not a mere reiteration of a prior decision as in response to the Applicant’s request for reconsideration, the Applicant’s case was resubmitted to the Committee. Thus, the Committee’s decision notified to the Applicant subsequently is subject to this Tribunal’s review. The Health and Life Insurance Section’s advice or failure to give proper advice is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Under the applicable procedures related to exceptional reimbursements, it provides that claims for services and treatments not covered under the insurance programme...
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.
The Applicant’s conduct was in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and rule 1.2(f) and constitutes misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did make efforts to persuade her supervisee to forego attempting mediation to resolve their interpersonal disputes and threatened that mediation could adversely affect her supervisee’s career. In particular, the Applicant implied that should her supervisee pursue mediation, her supervisee would develop a bad reputation and that mediation lacked confidentiality. The Applicant further indicated that there may be a negative impact on the chances of...
The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant’s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...
