±¬ÁÏÍø

There are incidents on which the Applicant had no direct knowledge. Consequently, he has no standing in filing a complaint of prohibited conduct in relation to them.

It was inappropriate for the Director, DA, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, to play an instrumental role in the constitution of the investigation panel considering that he was the decision-maker in relation to one alleged incident, was a material witness in the investigation and was highly likely to be interviewed by the investigation panel. Several factors cumulatively gave rise to a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest on the part of a panel...

The administrative decision to close a staff member¡¯s complaint with no disciplinary action produces direct legal consequences affecting his/her terms and conditions of appointment. Moreover, when the claim concerns issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. Accordingly, the application is receivable in its entirety.
The Panel did not comply with its duty to take the necessary steps to obtain the testimony of one...

Mr. Okwir appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to the extent ±¬ÁÏÍøDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions were largely a reiteration of his arguments before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that there was no indication that the non-renewal decision or other incidents amounted to harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it concluded that the behaviours at stake, even when viewed together, did not point to any kind of prohibited conduct in the sense of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the advice given to the Appellant regarding uncertified sick leave was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...