The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was “detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputation”. Second, by arguing that “she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority” and “rehabilitate” her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical...
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant requested the interim measure of “[s]uspension of [a]ction of the proposed separation of the Applicant” under art. 14 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the application concerned termination, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.
In any event, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented and that the Applicant had...
The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-UNAT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.
As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.
The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of “administrative decision” within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.
The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...
Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.
As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.
The...
The UNDT held that imposition of a sanction is not just a mechanical exercise, since the sanction should not be “more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result.
A written censure would have been a suitably “meaningful consequence” and sufficient to impress upon the Applicant the error of his actions. The record indicates that he acknowledged that he should have sought authorisation before registering his company.
The Tribunal therefore finds that the sanction in this case was disproportionate to the misconduct by adding to the written censure an additional, unnecessary...
the Tribunal rules in favour of the Applicant, concluding that she acted in good faith in her efforts to secure her son’s medical treatment and in the subsequent submission of medical invoices for reimbursement.
The Tribunal finds that the contested decision terminating the Applicant’s employment, was, therefore, unlawful.
A witness investigator's act of following the testimony of a Respondent witness while she was testifying contravened the ethical and procedural standards expected of a witness by decision to disregard this fundamental procedural rule not only demonstrates a potential bias but...
In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered “N/A” when asked after “is your...
The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by UNFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by UNFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...
