¹ú²úAV

ST/AI/379

  • Medical Clearances and Fitness to Work (UNHCR/AI/2022/03)
  • MONUSCO AI No. 2013/15
  • ST/A1/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/149/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/155/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.5
  • ST/AI/1994/4
  • ST/AI/1997/4
  • ST/AI/1997/6
  • ST/AI/1997/7
  • ST/AI/1998/1
  • ST/AI/1998/4
  • ST/AI/1998/7
  • ST/AI/1998/7/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/1998/9
  • ST/AI/1999/111
  • ST/AI/1999/12
  • ST/AI/1999/13
  • ST/AI/1999/16
  • ST/AI/1999/17
  • ³§°Õ/´¡±õ/1999/17​
  • ST/AI/1999/3
  • ST/AI/1999/6
  • ST/AI/1999/7
  • ST/AI/1999/8
  • ST/AI/1999/9
  • ST/AI/2000/1
  • ST/AI/2000/10
  • ST/AI/2000/11
  • ST/AI/2000/12
  • ST/AI/2000/13
  • ST/AI/2000/16
  • ST/AI/2000/19
  • ST/AI/2000/20
  • ST/AI/2000/4
  • ST/AI/2000/5
  • ST/AI/2000/6
  • ST/AI/2000/8
  • ST/AI/2000/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2000/9
  • ST/AI/2001/2
  • ST/AI/2001/7/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2001/8
  • ST/AI/2002/1
  • ST/AI/2002/3
  • ST/AI/2002/4
  • ST/AI/2003/1
  • ST/AI/2003/3
  • ST/AI/2003/4
  • ST/AI/2003/7
  • ST/AI/2003/8
  • ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2004/1
  • ST/AI/2004/3
  • ST/AI/2005/12
  • ST/AI/2005/2
  • ST/AI/2005/2/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2005/3
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Section 3.2
  • ST/AI/2005/5
  • ST/AI/2006
  • ST/AI/2006/3
  • ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2006/4
  • ST/AI/2006/5
  • ST/AI/2006/5/Section 11
  • ST/AI/2007/1
  • ST/AI/2007/3
  • ST/AI/2008/3
  • ST/AI/2008/5
  • ST/AI/2009/1
  • ST/AI/2009/10
  • ST/AI/2010/1
  • ST/AI/2010/12
  • ST/AI/2010/3
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 11.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 2.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 7.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 9.3
  • ST/AI/2010/4
  • ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.7
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 4
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 7
  • ST/AI/2010/6
  • ST/AI/2010/7
  • ST/AI/2011/3
  • ST/AI/2011/4
  • ST/AI/2011/5
  • ST/AI/2011/6
  • ST/AI/2011/7
  • ST/AI/2012/1
  • ST/AI/2012/2
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev. 1
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2012/3
  • ST/AI/2012/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2013/1
  • ST/AI/2013/1/Corr. 1
  • ST/AI/2013/3
  • ST/AI/2013/4
  • ST/AI/2015/2
  • ST/AI/2016/1
  • ST/AI/2016/2
  • ST/AI/2016/6
  • ST/AI/2016/8
  • ST/AI/2017/1
  • ST/AI/2017/2
  • ST/AI/2018/1
  • ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1: sec. 6.1 and sec. 6.2
  • ST/AI/2018/5
  • ST/AI/2018/6
  • ST/AI/2018/7
  • ST/AI/2019/1
  • ST/AI/2019/1/Section 4.3
  • ST/AI/2019/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2020/3
  • ST/AI/2020/5
  • ST/AI/2021/4
  • ST/AI/222
  • ST/AI/234
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/240/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/246
  • ST/AI/273
  • ST/AI/292
  • ST/AI/293
  • ST/AI/294
  • ST/AI/299
  • ST/AI/308/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/309/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/326
  • ST/AI/343
  • ST/AI/367
  • ST/AI/371
  • ST/AI/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/372
  • ST/AI/379
  • ST/AI/394
  • ST/AI/397
  • ST/AI/400
  • ST/AI/401
  • ST/AI/404
  • ST/AI/408
  • ST/AI/411
  • ST/Al/2010/5
  • UNHCR/AI/2016/3
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/16/Corrigendum ((Administrative Instruction on the Management of Temporary Appointments)
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1
  • UNMISS AI No. 005/2011
  • UNOPS Administrative Instruction Concerning Contract Renewals of Staff Members 2010 AI/HPRG/2010/02
  • Showing 1 - 9 of 9

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. UNDT/2012/159; an appeal by the “Applicant†(anonymity granted) against judgment No. UNDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. UNDT/2013/079. On receivability, UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s case that UNDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...

    UNAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. UNDT/2012/034 and UNDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, UNAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that UNDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, UNAT upheld the finding of UNDT. UNAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. UNAT held that Ms Perelli was...

    UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. UNDT/2011/106 and UNDT/2011/192. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant’s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant’s conduct was unwelcome. UNAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

    The respondent submitted documentary evidence showing that the applicant’s post had been created, and the applicant recruited, specifically for the purpose of prosecuting the above-mentioned top Serbian leader. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to abolish the applicant’s post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment had been taken in view of the necessities of service and constituted a proper exercise of the respondent’s discretionary authority. Since it was established that the necessities of service justified the termination of the applicant’s appointment, it was not...

    Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s due process rights were observed by the Organization in its handling of the complaint and rejected the application in its entirety. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Organization in handling the complaint, both individually and in aggregate, met the requirements of due process.

    The Applicant contended that the Complainant’s evidence contained numerous discrepancies and that the Complainant had exercised prevarication over her own statements and had displayed ambivalence over attempts to privately resolve the matter. The Applicant further contended that the finding of sexual harassment was based on the victim’s own perception of the Applicant’s actions. The Tribunal found that: based on the testimony and the entire file, the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were established; by any objective measure, the Applicant’s conduct was prohibited by UNICEF...

    There was no evidence that established that the work place had become intimidating, hostile or offensive for the Complainant. The charge of sexual harassment cannot be sustained in the circumstances to the extent that the Complainant was a willing participant in sex talks in emails, via telephone, via text messages and in person. While it is recognised that a rebuttable presumption of law or fact may exist where a certain set of facts are present, there is definitely no room for making a legal finding based on presumptions about what would likely be the case in a given situation. It is a trite...

    Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT made the following findings: The preliminary fact-finding investigation was initiated properly, but was flawed, because the Applicant was not re-interviewed or given the opportunity to answer the allegations of sexual harassment in writing after the full scope of allegations became known to the investigation panel. However, these flaws did not vitiate the contested decision as they were cured in the process that followed. The findings of the fact-finding investigation report and the accompanying documents justified the decision to initiate formal...

    The Respondent contended that the allegations of sexual harassment had been established after a proper investigation, that the disciplinary measures were appropriate and proportionate and that the Applicant had agreed to the imposition of these disciplinary measures. The Tribunal found that: (1) The OHRM had mischaracterized the Applicant’s offence as “sexual harassment†rather than “harassment†and failed to follow its own procedures in “the Guidelines on consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the Secretariat eligible to be consideredâ€; (2) There was a...