±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s motivations for accepting his appointment to the P-3 post have no bearing on the lawfulness of the decision. The Applicant was cautioned in advance of his right to apply for other vacant posts, and he voluntarily decided to apply for a lower-level post. The Applicant, upon selection for the P-3 level post, was cautioned that he would be appointed at the P-3 level regardless of the grade of the post he encumbered at the time. This course of action was open to the Organization under ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA¡¯s staffing policy. The Applicant then proceeded to accept this...

The Tribunal concludes that the contested decision, lawful or not, does not result from a disciplinary process and is therefore not exempted from management evaluation. Accordingly, in application of staff rule 11.2, the Applicant ought to have requested management evaluation before filing his appeal before this Tribunal. Having failed to do so, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant was sanctioned for: (a) misuse of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s ICT resources and (b) harassment and abuse of authority in relation to her treatment of some vendor employees. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established Since the Applicant does not dispute the underlying facts of the first charge (access of former personnel's ICT resources without authorization), the Tribunal finds that these facts have been established to the required standard. Regarding the second charge, the Tribunal finds that the evidence establishes the following facts: a. The Applicant...

Since the Applicant in this case is separated, he can no longer be reassigned, as he requests. The application is therefore moot.

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...

The Applicant has no right to the Administration¡¯s blanket acceptance of his account of events, nor to the imposition of sanctions against another staff member without due process. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

Neither party has¡ªrightly so¡ªdisputed the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s findings in Al Shakour that the United Nations Secretary-General was bound by the General Assembly¡¯s endorsement and adoption of the ICSC¡¯s determination regarding post-adjustment for United Nations staff in Geneva. In doing so, the Tribunal further notes that, as relevant to the present case and following Al Shakour, the General Assembly provided no alternatives for the United Nations Secretary-General on how to compute the relevant post-adjustment payment than by following the ICSC¡¯s determination. Accordingly, as relevant to the...

The Applicant cannot claim that the Administration had initiated a disciplinary process against her. The Applicant had no right to force the Administration to complete a disciplinary process against her. The Administration decided to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process in relation to the Applicant should she be employed with the Organization in the future. Therefore, as in Kennes, the Applicant¡¯s due process rights have not been violated. The note placed in the Applicant's Official Status File is merely informative in nature and does therefore have no impact on the...

The Applicant did not appeal a final administrative decision carrying direct legal effects. The application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The contested decisions had no nexus with the Applicant's former employment with the Organization, the application was therefore not receivable ratione personae.

The Tribunal acknowledges that the 120-day deadline for OIOS to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory. However, the Tribunal is of the view that a departure from this deadline has to be just. Given the circumstances of the case, even if the 120-day deadline to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the delays and unjustified attempts to suspend or terminate the investigation in this case constitute an egregious violation of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1. By not initiating its investigation in due course, OIOS rendered itself unable to...