±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

The documents on record demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Applicant had rented out his flat in Addis Ababa to two other staff members, based on a lease with an inflated rent (and without paying agent¡¯s fees), and that the latter two used that lease to claim rental subsidy from ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR in an amount undue.

The Tribunal found that the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯staxes was lawfuland that the Administration was not liable for the delay in processingof the claim.

The Applicant¡¯s own testimony undermined his claim of extenuatingcircumstances.Histestimony conclusively established thatthe Applicantdid not fileclaims for tax reimbursement in a timely manner because he mistakenly believed that he was not requiredto file and pay taxes to the United StatesGovernment uponexpiry of his permanent residence.His error came to light in August 2019, when the IRS placed alienon his bank account to...

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

Under the applicable legal framework, ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI and KJSO, like other United Nations organs, consistently and uniformly use the ±¬ÁÏÍøORE in all conversions to local currency, whether they involve transactions, determination of staff entitlements, or other financial recordings.

ST/SGB/2019/2 (Delegation of authority in the administration of the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Financial Regulations and Rules), do not allow for delegated authority in respect of ¡°exchange rate fluctuations¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI and KJSO therefore had no authority to overrule the said provision or to apply a different rate than the...

i. The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence on the record, the Applicant was never a staff member of ECA, DOS or any other entity of the United Nations. Accordingly, he had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The application was thus dismissed.

ii. The Tribunal also held that the application was barred by res judicata. It was recalled that the Tribunal had previously rejected an application by the Applicant contesting the same claims he raised in the present application. In Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/078, the Tribunal had found that the Applicant was not a staff member and had no legal...

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record, established that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant was involved in the fraudulent scheme and in the attempt to interfere with the investigation into that scheme by inducing a witness to lie to investigators.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that the established facts qualified as serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and disciplinary process.

On whether the sanction was...

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant¡¯s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal¡¯s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal¡¯s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he ¡°failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience¡±.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear...