±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

The staff member filed an appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT arguing that she did not only challenge the withholding of her salary increment, but she also challenged the reasons behind the administrative decision. She claimed the JAB did not review whether there were improper motives behind the administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims relating to the salary increment were indisputably moot. She obtained the relief she had originally sought, and accordingly her appeal no longer presented an existing or live controversy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that any judicial examination of the reasons...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1008. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms. Fosse¡¯s claim that SCBD/±¬ÁÏÍøEP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse¡¯s application was inter alia rejected by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

The Tribunal cannot review the merits of the Applicant¡¯s allegations of harassment or abuse of authority. Its jurisdiction is limited to the review of whether her resignation was caused by an action or inaction of Administration which was in violation of the applicable legal framework. The Applicant¡¯s resignation was not caused by an action or inaction of the Administration but was her unilateral decision. Accordingly, this aspect of the application does not concern an administrative decision capable of judicial review and is not receivable. ; Given that the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The Applicant was separated from service for submitting false information in three claims for dental treatment to the Medical Insurance Plan provider, Cigna, for reimbursement. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because during the investigation he was properly informed of the subject and purpose of the interview and afforded sufficient notice. He also had no objections as to the conduct of the interview when asked at the end of his interview. With respect to the claim that the Applicant insisted was, in fact, genuine, the Tribunal concluded that the allegation had not been...