¹ú²úAV

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s filing of an incomplete application met the time limits for filing an application set out in staff rule 11.4(a) and that as the incomplete application was filed in time, there was no requirement for the Applicant to request a suspension or waiver of the deadline.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had discharged the burden of proof in showing that her separation from the Organization was motivated by extraneous factors and improper motives. Extraneous factors – There was increased animosity between the Applicant and her various supervisors both in Bor and later when she was transferred to Wau. Consequently, the Tribunal found that bias against the Applicant existed on the part of UNMISS management. Due Process/ Procedural flaw – The responsible officials at the mission all defied the procedures provided for by ST/AI/371 for dealing with reports of...

Compensation for moral injury - A staff member whose fundamental or other rights are infringed upon by the agents of the Respondent is entitled to have an effective remedy granted by this Tribunal. The Administration’s duty to respect fundamental human rights - What happened to the Applicant in the process of her forced eviction by the agents of UNMISS in the morning of 11 November 2011 constituted not only human rights violations but also criminal and civil wrongs. The forceful and unlawful eviction additionally violated Article17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...

The Tribunal concluded that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment (FTA) was unlawful because he was erroneously subjected to a recruitment and selection process after he had been successfully transitioned from UNMIS to UNMISS as the sole candidate for the post of State Coordinator in Aweil. The Applicant was awarded compensation of one year’s net base salary. Lateral transfer: The Tribunal noted the absence of important terms in the 19 December 2010 letter regarding the length of the assignment and reabsorption and concluded that the Applicant had, in fact, been laterally...

The Tribunal concluded that, based on the inconsistencies identified in the complainant’s statement during the investigation, together with the absence of his testimony during the appeal, as the only direct witness apart from the Applicant, the complainant’s version of facts did not corroborate the other witnesses’ statements, except for one witness, who had only an indirect knowledge of the alleged incident. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable link between the alleged physical assault and the existing injury. The Tribunal further concluded that the procedure followed was...

The allegations of soliciting and receiving money from several UNMISS International Individual Contractors (IICs) were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the established facts legally amounted to misconduct under the staff regulation 1.2(g) and staff rule 1.2(k) because in 2014 and 2015, the Applicant solicited and/or accepted monetary payments from the IICs knowing that these payments were being made because of assistance he provided or was believed to have provided in his position as a finance assistant with the Organization. In the absence of a request for management...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s claim in respect of recoveries from his pension, affirmed by the Management Evaluation Unit on 14 April 2015 was not receivable. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had until 13 July 2015 to file an application challenging the decision but he failed to do so. With regard to the Applicant’s request for retroactive dependency benefits of his adopted children, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of that decision within 60 calendar days, but he did not do so. Consequently, the application was rejected as it was...

The Applicant failed to comply with art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

In line with the jurisprudence of the Organization, the role of the Tribunal was limited to reviewing whether the candidate received full and fair consideration, the procedures were followed, improper motives were absent and relevant materials had been considered. In this regard, UNAT has held that a candidate alleging a failure to observe his or her right to full and fair consideration for selection must prove through clear and convincing evidence that procedure was violated, the panel was biased, irrelevant material was considered or relevant material ignored. Contrary to the Applicant’s...

While the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation before filing this application, she was, however, required to file her application with UNDT within; 90 calendar days of receiving the contested decision. The Applicant’s 25 March 2018 motion for waiver failed to comply with the stringent requirement pronounced by the Appeal’s Tribunal in Thiam because it was not filed prior to the filing of her substantive application but more than five months after the fact. Additionally, the Applicant’s passing mention of receivability in her 17 October 2017 application cannot be...