±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily dismissed the Appellant¡¯s Application for Confidentiality and then considered the merits of the Appeal, which contained three grounds. With respect to the first ground, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that due process was satisfied if the staff member could comment on anonymous witness statements providing evidence against him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the reasons for withholding the identities of the victims and for not producing them at trial were contained in the OIOS Investigation Report that was sent to the Appellant, thus the conditions for the admissibility for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no legal authority for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to commence the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Administration properly exercised its discretion to place the Applicant on administrative leave, considering an enduring reputational risk in light of the allegations relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an under-age girl, which were reasonably supported by the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new Staff Rule 10. 4(c), which had not yet been enacted at the relevant time, was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s factual findings were open to criticism in that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find that the facts supporting the disciplinary measure had been established and to conclude that those facts amounted to misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT supported the reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s attempts at exoneration, namely that factors such as whether or not her husband was qualified for the job or the other candidate secured another position did not change the existence of a conflict of interest and the way in which the integrity of the process was compromised. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found...

Pursuant to section 3 of ST/AI/371, in determining if the preliminary investigation appears to indicate that the report of misconduct is well founded, the head of office or responsible officer is vested with a wide discretion. That discretion is to be exercised judiciously in the light of what the investigation has revealed. The discretion cannot and should not be used capriciously. It is incumbent on the person vested with that discretion to scrutinise the evidence carefully before deciding whether any act of misconduct as defined has been committed. A judicious exercise ofthe discretion...

The Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given the gravity of the allegations, the Tribunal decided that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.

Article 10(5) of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is silent as to how compensation to be awarded to a party is to be calculated. The Respondent submits that in such circumstances where there is a lacuna in the internal law of the organization, general principles of law provide a source of internal administrative law and should be applied. The Tribunal agrees with this reasoning and further notes that how this Article will be applied will depend on the particular circumstances of each case. The recognized heads of damage are: actual pecuniary loss; damages for procedural error and moral damages. An...

The Administration, having reviewed the OIOS report, had reason to believe that the Applicant may have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct for which disciplinary measures may be imposed. The discretion was exercised judiciously by the responsible officers after review of the OIOS Investigation Report. The findings of the ASG/OHRM were those of an objective observer who had scrutinized the entire dossier and made conclusions on the basis of the evidence before him. There was no procedural irregularity on the part of the Organization as there was full compliance with ST/AI/371. Where an Applicant...