±¬ÁÏÍø

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in acts affecting two staff members, namely V01 and V02. The Tribunal thus held that the facts on which the sanction was based were clearly established.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards V01 and V02 was (i) unwelcome, (ii) of a sexual nature, and (iii) they might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation. Further, his conduct interfered with their work and/or created for them an intimidating, hostile...

In this case, the facts were established and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed fraud on purpose.

The Applicant¡¯s conduct amounted to a breach of his basic obligations under staff regulations 1.2(b) and (g), staff rule 1.2(i), and the Strategic Framework for the Prevention of Fraud and Corruption.

The evidence is clear and convincing that the Applicant acted with knowledge and intent to mislead (and even with a possible personal economic interest).

Given the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the sanction is not absurd, unreasonable, or...

The issue at stake in the case at hand is whether the Applicant has a legitimate interest in maintaining current legal proceedings.The evidence on record shows that the Respondent rescinded the contested decision on 23 March 2023. The Applicant acknowledged this in her rejoinder but considers that her grievances are not resolved because she ¡°also requested consideration for new assignments and a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter¡±.However, the 23 March 2023 letter, which clearly rescinded the contested decision, amounts to a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter. It follows that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first addressed the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms. Mukomah¡¯s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund¡¯s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

±¬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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Organization¡¯s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi¡¯s allegations that his...

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela¡¯s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...