±¬ÁÏÍø

Having considered the parties¡¯ submissions on the matter of the appropriate relief for the Applicant, the Tribunal: (i) Orders rescission of the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant; (ii) Orders the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant; (iii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant¡¯s lost earnings from the date of his summary dismissal to the date of his reinstatement with interest at 8% less US$ 2,600 per month for the said period; (iv) Orders that the Applicant be served a written reprimand to be filed in his Official Status File for the reasons cited at paragraph 8.1 (iii)...

The more serious an allegation against a staff member and attendant sanction, the higher the degree of proof required. Establishing criminal liability in investigations and judicial proceedings even in the context of a civil matter such as this must necessarily require that a standard higher than the ordinary one of a balance of probabilities must be attained. The OIOS Investigations Manual requires that investigators approach matters with an ¡°open mind¡± and emphasises that their task is to ¡°establish facts¡± and draw ¡°reasonable conclusions¡± from those facts. It is a ¡°dispassionate...

The Tribunal¡¯s findings were that the Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given that the Applicant failed to abide by staff regulation 1.2 (b) and former staff rule 110.1, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.

The Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given the gravity of the allegations, the Tribunal decided that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has been consistently dilatory in the pursuit of this claim. Leaving the matter open on the court¡¯s docket would be inappropriate in view of the Applicant¡¯s clear lack of interest in pursuing this claim.

With regard to due process requirements, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been afforded a hearing in regard to the charges alleged against him. Whilst the language used in the last paragraph of the USG¡¯s letter dated 8 November 2005 seemed to suggest that if the JDC made a request for the physical presence of the Applicant in Geneva such a request would be acceded to, the Tribunal was of the view that the JDC did not indicate in clear terms that the presence of the Applicant would be essential, the word used in Rule 29 and the USG¡¯s request did not violate the Applicant¡¯s rights to...

The Tribunal dealt with the notion of ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± in the light of the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍø Appeals Tribunal. It reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. The Tribunal considered whether it could find any exceptional circumstances, as alleged by the Applicant that could justify a waiver of the receivability requirements, pursuant to staff rule 111.2 (f) of ST/SGB/1999/5 of 3 June 1999. Initially the Applicant submitted before the JAB that the fact that...

The early termination of his contract was not based on a proper or lawful evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance. In the absence of a comprehensive and fair performance evaluation done at the time, the reasons given by the Respondent cannot be regarded as cogent or reliable because the Applicant did not have an opportunity to refute, answer or rebut them. They therefore represent just one side of the story and, however strongly felt by the Respondent, are not a reliable basis for a lawful termination of the contract before its expiry date. This is not a question of improper motivation...

The Respondent rested his case on the evidence of a witness on whom anonymity was conferred during the investigation and who was not called at the hearing. From the statements made by the witness during the investigation the Tribunal found that his/her testimony was fraught with irregularities and inconsistencies and could not be acted upon. The Tribunal also found that failure to call the witness for cross examination was a breach of the due process requirement. The Tribunal also held that when anonymity is conferred on a witness during the investigation, the Tribunal is not bound by this and...

It was not disputed that the Applicant borrowed money from a Sales Manager working in a company doing business with MONUC. In the light of the applicable law and in particular the financial and procurement rules, the Tribunal found that misconduct had been properly established. Nonetheless, the Tribunal found a certain number of mitigating factors such as the fact that he repaid the loan in full and that it was a ¡°one-off decision¡±. Therefore, the Tribunal took the view that the sanction was not proportionate.