51ÁÔÆæ

• The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.
• The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal held:

a. The evidence demonstrated that the Applicant was not credible, particularly in his denial of misconduct during the incident in the Complainant¡¯s container.

b. The facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

c. The established facts about the Applicant¡¯s behaviour in the Complainant¡¯s container room that evening amounted to misconduct.

d. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was proportionate.

e. The Applicant's due process rights were not violated during the UNHCR Inspector General¡¯s Office ...

The UNAT held that, while there was a lack of adequate reasons for declining to open investigations into misconduct allegations raised by the former staff member, his reports concerned ordinary administrative matters that were of themselves likely not misconduct and certainly not serious misconduct.The UNAT further found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the former staff member did not provide evidence demonstrating ill motivation on the part of the alleged perpetrators. Accordingly, applying the ¡°no difference principle¡±, the UNAT found that the lack of adequate reasons for declining...

The UNAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The UNDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

The UNAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration¡¯s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in UNDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The UNAT found that the UNDT, by engaging an expert to ¡°analyze the facts¡± and ¡°ask...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The UNAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the UNDT was obliged to consider.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT held that BK¡¯s appeal of a case management order does not fall in the narrow set of cases where the UNDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction or powers in determining an interlocutory issue. His requests for anonymity in both of his UNDT cases were granted, and there is no indication that despite anonymity, any identifying material could have been disclosed in any of the publicly available records. Nor did the UNDT¡¯s decision to proceed to final judgment exceed its jurisdiction.

The UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s denial of BK¡¯s inadequately supported requests for a stay, and proceeding to...

The UNAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the UNDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The UNDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified...

The UNAT held that the former staff member committed sexual harassment towards the Complainant by: i) entering her accommodation without invitation, hugging, kissing, and licking her forehead without her consent, reclining her on her bed to lie next to him, and refusing to leave when asked; and ii) telling her the following day that she had been unable to sleep because she had been thinking of him.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had provided a clear and reasoned analysis of the witnesses¡¯ credibility.It concluded that the UNDT¡¯s determination that certain discrepancies in the Complainant¡¯s...