±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

As a preliminary matter, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute with respect to the material facts of the case. The Applicant was subject to an investigation and disciplinary process while employed at ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, had his appointment terminated for misconduct, and did not disclose this information in his PHP when applying for the position at the ±¬ÁÏÍøLB, ±¬ÁÏÍøGSC.

The Applicant's attempts to justify his conduct were both illogical and not grounded on evidence.

False claims and misrepresentations of qualifications on PHPs constitute serious misconduct for violating the legal framework. The Applicant's conduct was not an...

The Tribunal noted that there was no submission on record indicating that the contested decision imposed adverse consequences on the Applicant. The Tribunal, thus, found that it was not established how the contested decision adversely affected the Applicant¡¯s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional constraints did not allow it to hear and decide the application in the absence of a particular facts-based case. Therefore, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...

The Applicant did not seek a waiver of suspension of the deadline facing her, nor did she meet the deadline. For this reason, the application is not receivable ratione temporis as it is time-barred.