±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

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.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its jurisdiction and it dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration had been made aware of the disharmonious working conditions within the Regional Office for Europe and had failed to take timely action. By exposing Mr. Cahn to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time (several months), the Administration failed in its duty of care vis-¨¤-vis Mr. Cahn to timely implement preventive or interim measures and thus prevent any possible harm to his health, irrespective of whether...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Ms. Banyanga¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. Banyanga had not adequately explained the inconsistencies between her own personal information and the information submitted by Mr. Mbirange regarding his reported spouse (including that the name ¡°Banyanga¡± did not appear in the documentation that Mr. Mbirange provided about his spouse).

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected Ms. Banyanga¡¯s reliance on the marriage certificate that she submitted, which showed a purported date of marriage in 1997. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Mbirange entered...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.

With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel ¡°influenced¡± by them.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also denied the Secretary-General¡¯s...