±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the ±¬ÁÏÍøTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

As preliminary matters, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

The Dispute Tribunal committed an error in procedure by relying on ex parte evidence in the form of three doctors¡¯ notes, of which the Secretary-General received the translated copies only two days before the issuance of the impugned Judgment, in violation of audi alteram partem. The Dispute Tribunal failed to consider the ¡°checks and balances to ensure transparency¡± instituted in established procedures as outlined in the Guidelines and the ability of the Applicant to raise timely concerns about potential bias after the interview. As there is no obligation to provide the names of the...

Certification of sick leave: If some staff members as a matter of practice communicated directly with the MSD rather than through their mission, such practice does not detract from or modify written legislation.Recognised regional medical centres: A country in serious political, economic and security situation was unlikely to be the place to seek adequate medical treatment for an ailment recognised by the organization as a condition for medical evacuation. Recovery of overpayment: ±¬ÁÏÍø being a humanitarian organization and in providing humanitarian assistance worldwide, needs to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s explanations for how the missing card came to be in his possession were so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. He was shown to have had the opportunity to take illegal possession of the card and stood to make a pecuniary benefit from so taking it. There were several material inconsistencies in the Applicant¡¯s case and he was found not to be credible, contradicting himself in the course of the investigation and in his testimony before the Tribunal. The facts upon which the sanction was based were established and amounted to serious misconduct on the part of...

The Applicant was informed in February 2007 that his promotion must follow a competitive recruitment process. The contention that he should have been promoted to the G-5 level at the time could and should have been challenged when the Applicant received formal notification of his retroactive promotion in October/November 2007. He did not. He also did not challenge the Respondent¡¯s letter of 6 May 2015.

With respect to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL Head...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant¡¯s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent¡¯s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors¡¯ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...