±¬ÁÏÍø

No new evidence is to be filed by the parties with their closing submission and pursuant to the principle of equality of arms, both parties must have the opportunity to test the evidence on record. Disciplinary proceedings within the Organization do not amount to criminal procedures. Use of video footage from an external entity during the investigation is not illegal as ±¬ÁÏÍøHC rules provide that investigators may avail themselves of external supporting evidence. Sick leave requests must be approved by a staff member¡¯s service/Human Resources section or the respective Medical Service. The...

The Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal recalled that a former staff member has access to the Dispute Tribunal only in respect of an administrative decision affecting the terms of his or her former appointment or contract. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing the application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily decided not to admit the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordinator¡¯s testimony into evidence, holding that it was not required because the case record already contained relevant evidence in relation to the facts in which he had been involved. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the evidence showed that neither the Applicant nor the Senior Programme Officer were involved in the implementation of the project. In fact, a Senior Reintegration Officer had overall responsibility for it as he requested an operational advance and, consequently, was personally responsible for the funds. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant had no authority to demand a performance guarantee from an NGO Coordinator and that the Applicant¡¯s intention was not to keep a performance guarantee, but rather to obtain a bribe from the NGO Coordinator. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it was not convinced of the probative value of the alleged handwritten note which the Applicant claimed was evidence of his intention to request a performance guarantee. On the issue of the Applicant returning the alleged performance guarantee, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the real intention of the Applicant and the Senior Programme Assistant was to avoid the...

Regarding the Respondent¡¯s claim that the Applicant cannot challenge the managerial action imposed on him for failing to request a management evaluation, the Tribunal found that the challenged managerial action is a non-disciplinary measure imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process and therefore the Applicant can challenge it, along with disciplinary measures, without requesting a management evaluation under staff rule 11.2(b). Regarding the question of whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established, the Tribunal found that the facts that the...

The Tribunal finds that the recovery of CHF2,838 constituting financial loss occasioned to the Respondent through the Applicant¡¯s private phone calls is not a relevant consideration to the determination of the proportionality of the sanction. This is because the recovery is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 10.2(b)(ii) which expressly clarifies that recovery of monies owed to the Organisation is a not a disciplinary measure. The Applicant has failed to show that he deserves a more lenient sanction than the one imposed. His impecuniosity, resulting from the sanction is...

As the remedy requested in the application had already been obtained, the Tribunal rejects the application as moot.

The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.