±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no ruling on this...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order, finding that Mr. Okwakol¡¯s complaints about what the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided it would admit into evidence and what submissions it would consider in deciding his substantive case, were remediable as part of his appeal on the merits if they were wrongly decided.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to admit the audio-recording made by the SEA victim because this evidentiary material was relied upon by the Administration in taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service. The audio-recording needed to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration¡¯s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz¡¯s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well?substantiated and in line with the...

The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01¡¯s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01¡¯s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01¡¯s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.

However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by applying the improper legal framework, the relevant legal framework not being ST/SGB/2008/5, but the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Disciplinary Framework and the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Harassment Policy. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, being one of the separately administered funds of the Organization, has its own legal framework and is not regulated by the Secretariat¡¯s general administrative issuances such as ST/SGB/2008/5, unless otherwise stated or unless it has expressly accepted their applicability. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it found that Mr. Toson¡¯s request...