����AV

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the application filed on 2 March 2022 via email was essentially the same as that filed on 16 April 2022 via the eFiling portal. Consequently, in line with Practice Direction No. 4, para. 11, the Tribunal found that the present application was receivable.

 Merits

In the present case, this Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established according to the applicable standard.

The Tribunal examined the evidence on...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it included two Microsoft Outlook notifications which established that the administrative decision was delivered to and read by the Applicant on 28 March 2023. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications.

The Tribunal thus held that that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the application was...

The Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications. This meant that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline.

He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline so the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. UNCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of UNCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that UNCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

The Tribunal deemed that it was established that in October 2013, the Applicant, a staff member of UNHCR in Turkey, had travelled to Syria in her capacity as a member of a delegation of the Women International Democratic Federation, responding to an invitation received from the Syrian Arab Republic General Women Union. During that visit, she attended a meeting with the President of Syria during which she handed him a flag with the words “Do not yield” in Turkish. A picture of that encounter was taken and published in a Turkish online newspaper. The Tribunal considered that in view of the clear...

As MSD is a technical body, the Applicant was required under staff rule 11.2(b) to submit his application against the ABCC’s decision directly to the UNDT without first having recourse to MEU for review.; On the basis of the Applicant’s own admission that no decision has been made in relation to his claim for the injuries to his legs and considering the relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudence, the claim against the SecretaryGeneral under this head must be dismissed on the ground that it is premature.