±¬ÁÏÍø

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant¡¯s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the ±¬ÁÏÍøEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., ¡°a review of the review¡±. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendations...

A lack of cooperation is not always a relevant circumstance in every case to be taken as aggravating factor. Sometimes, if the lack of cooperation is not serious, it may not be taken as an aggravating circumstance. However, the nature of the case may affect how lack of cooperation during an investigation is viewed. Being dishonest and misleading during the investigation may be considered serious and be taken as a ground of aggravation. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a lack of cooperation can never be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

While the Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly...

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant¡¯s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary ¡°administrative action¡± would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent¡¯s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

Receivability
The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and found that only the decision not to consider him eligible for a temporary appointment through the Talent Pool, at the P-2 level, was receivable and subject to judicial review. Any other decision to which the Applicant referred in his submissions was consequently not receivable.

Merits
The Tribunal referred to the applicable legal framework as well as to the evidence on record and noted that the practice is to only consider experience at the G-6 level and above (or equivalent experience outside of the ±¬ÁÏÍø...

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that given...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...