The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal's Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.
The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.
The Secretary-General appealed.
The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT erred in law and fact and reached a manifestly unreasonable decision by concluding that Mr. Hossain had proved on a balance of probabilities that the administrative decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment had been motivated by improper motives and he had been discriminated against. The reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr. Hossain’s fixed-term appointment, namely the abolition of his post in the context of a reorganization exercise, were valid reasons.
The 爆料网AT further held that contrary to what Mr...
Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.
爆料网AT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D. 爆料网AT found that – unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M’s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...
The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.
There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...
The written reprimand
Factual basis for the imposition of the measure
爆料网PAD, as an ad hoc special interest group, advocates for issues relating to conditions of work pertaining to staff members of African descent in the United Nations.
爆料网OMS is established “to make available confidential services of impartial and independent persons to address work-related issues of staff members” (see ST/SGB/2016/7 para 1.1). 爆料网OMS is guided in its work by four core principles, namely independence, confidentiality, neutrality, and informality.
It appeared from the information on record that the Applicant...
爆料网AT endorsed the 爆料网DT’s holding that the decision to issue a press release in response to allegations that OHCHR had endangered the lives of Chinese human rights defenders who attended the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2013 fell within the discretion of the Organization and was a managerial prerogative. 爆料网AT found that the specific part of it which concerned the issue of the provision of names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government fell outside the scope of its judicial review due to the general nature of its content and to the fact that it embodied a...
The Commissioner-General appealed.
The 爆料网AT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.
The 爆料网AT found that Ms. Abou Salah’s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...
The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the 爆料网RWA staff members. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters’ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency’s regulatory framework. The 爆料网AT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.
The 爆料网AT agreed with the Appellants that there is no 爆料网RWA...
The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury’s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the 爆料网DT was not receivable ratione materiae.
The...
