¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal found that there was a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant created a hostile work environment and that she unlawfully interfered with recruitment process for P-2 TJO. The Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant¡¯s actions, as established by the facts, were abuse of the Applicant¡¯s authority as Director at the D-2 level and constitute misconduct under the above-mentioned legal framework. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Administration¡¯s finding that the Applicant...

As per the account of both parties, previously awarded costs had been paid and, thus, what remained to be considered is if the 2014 contested decision has been fully rescinded or not. The issues at stake are of a medical nature and that is why this Tribunal remanded the matter by Order No. 24 (GVA/2016) so that a Medical Board is convened and a determination on the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlements is made. This medical determination is a condition sine qua non for the submission for consideration for a disability benefit by the UNSPC. Contrary to what the Applicant argues, UNJSPF...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.

The Tribunal concluded that based on the totality of evidentiary material, the electronic fuel monitoring system (EFMS) transaction records, Vivo Energy transaction logs, and the identification by witnesses heard in the investigation, it was satisfied that the Applicant¡¯s participation in the fraudulent scheme had been shown by clear and convincing evidence. On the due process prong, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant faulted the conduct of the investigation on the ground that the investigators favoured inculpatory evidence and ignored potential exculpatory factors. The Tribunal observed...

The impugned ¡°decision¡± carried no ¡°direct legal consequences¡± given that it was not final and remains open to challenge by way of rebuttal.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was ¡°clear and unambiguous¡± enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant¡¯s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.

DSA is provided for official trips only, and these must be formally approved prior to travel. The decision to refuse DSA for the days the Applicant was in Cairo is therefore lawful, as that part of his presence in Cairo was clearly for personal purposes.

- The question at hand is whether the Applicant has been fully reimbursed for her 2019 tax liability, regardless of tax liability share. What affects an Applicant¡¯s terms of employment is the payment of her total tax liability and not how different entities are to cover it. Any issue concerning the division of tax liability is to be dealt with by the Organizations involved, not by the Applicant. - The total amount received by the Applicant equals the undisputed total amount that she was entitled to receive. Consequently, the Applicant has been reimbursed in full for her tax liability.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.

1. In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...