51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that neither JA nor TA were refugees, or beneficiaries of UNHCR assistance or fell within the prohibitions stipulated in staff rule 1.2(e). The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations made against a staff member are conclusive evidence that the staff member was responsible for the reputational damage caused thereby to the Organization. The Applicant had no control over what the media chose to report. Hence, UNHCR basing its decision on these facts was unlawful as they were extraneous to the case at hand and irrelevant. The...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.

The Tribunal found that because separation was not the sanction imposed on the Applicant, the applicable standard of proof was one on a preponderance of evidence. This standard was lower than clear and convincing evidence which the Respondent had to prove to show that the Applicant committed misconduct as alleged. It was evident from the facts that the Applicant and at least one other person led a group to the Complainant¡¯s house. The Applicant played an active role in the alleged harassment. This fact was proved to the requisite standard. The Tribunal found that a group of at least five local...

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with UNHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that UNHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. It was not disputed that since the Applicant was on private business at the time he fell ill, his case did not fall under any of the exceptions of sec. 6.3 of the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±). The Tribunal found that the MIP Rules clearly provide that only reasonable and customary expenses at the duty station are covered by the MIP and are, thus, considered as ¡°recognized expenses¡± unless one of the exceptions set out in...

The Tribunal held that the facts arose from the Applicant¡¯s former employment relationship with UNHCR. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application to be receivable.

No new evidence is to be filed by the parties with their closing submission and pursuant to the principle of equality of arms, both parties must have the opportunity to test the evidence on record. Disciplinary proceedings within the Organization do not amount to criminal procedures. Use of video footage from an external entity during the investigation is not illegal as UNHC rules provide that investigators may avail themselves of external supporting evidence. Sick leave requests must be approved by a staff member¡¯s service/Human Resources section or the respective Medical Service. The...

The Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal recalled that a former staff member has access to the Dispute Tribunal only in respect of an administrative decision affecting the terms of his or her former appointment or contract. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing the application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.