51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that after a first positive evaluation in 2012, the Applicant¡¯s first reporting officer had put the Applicant on notice in respect of what she perceived as shortcomings in the Applicant¡¯s performance, at the beginning of the performance cycle 2013/14. It found, however, that the Rebuttal process was marked by serious procedural flaws and ruled that the final decision on the rebuttal, confirming the Applicant¡¯s PAS rating for the cycle 2013, was illegal and could not stand. Therefore, and since the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 30 June 2014 was...

N/A

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Applicant¡¯s argument that staff rule 9.2(b) should apply to her case because her resignation was not genuine and the Administration had set her up for resignation. Rather, it was apparent to the Tribunal that the Applicant¡¯s resignation was situational and a consequence of a combination of earlier decisions taken by the Applicant and the external factors. The Applicant overestimated the power of her newly acquired diploma on the job market which proved more difficult than she had expected. The Applicant made no inquiries concerning termination indemnity...

Full and fair consideration: In the absence of concrete, convincing evidence, the mere fact that it is possible, theoretically, to alter/tamper a written test will not suffice for the Tribunal to conclude that an Applicant¡¯s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Also, where no one of the people involved in the administration of the test had a motive to manipulate it, the Tribunal will not find that the decision had been influenced by extraneous factors. The burden of proof in these matters lies on the Applicant. Good management practice: The Administration should take measures...

The procedure for conducting investigations of allegations of harassment and abuse of authority by staff members of UNICEF is set out in Administrative Instruction CF/EXD/2012-007. The Applicant provided no evidence that the CF/EXD/2012-007 procedures were not complied with in relation to his case. The undisputed evidence before the Tribunal was that UNICEF¡¯s independent OIAI discussed the allegations with the Applicant but concluded that it did not merit a comprehensive review and was not a well-founded allegation of prohibited conduct. It proposed alternative recourse, which the Applicant...

The Applicant failed to file a request for management evaluation of the nonrenewal decision within the applicable deadline. This claim was not receivable. The Applicant had in his management evaluation request of 12 July 2015 already accomplished the requirements set out in CF/EXD/2012-007 in relation to his complaints of bullying, harassment, intimidation and abuse of authority against his supervisor and the UNICEF Country Representative. As held in Kadri, the Applicant was entitled to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his application. The Applicant¡¯s claims in relation to the...

The decision the Applicant seeks to impugn cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal because the Applicant did not yet request management evaluation. Without considering whether the impugned decision is an administrative decision within the definition of art. 2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application is thus not receivable ratione materiae. Further, if the Applicant is seeking an extension of time, by waiver or suspension, to file a request for management evaluation of the decision in respect of her...

The contested decision was imposed on the Applicant after finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant threatened to kill other staff members in the Afghanistan Country Office. The crux of the Applicant¡¯s case was that the facts were not established through clear and convincing evidence as the witnesses present during the alleged threats provided inconsistent testimonies, and the evidence was not properly collected and, consequently, was unreliable. Whether the investigation was vitiated by procedural flaws Having reviewed the whole investigation file, which was not...

The Tribunal noted that art. 12.3 of its Statute and art. 30 of its Rules of Procedure limit the scope of applications for interpretation to judgments. Neither the Tribunal¡¯s Statute nor its Rules of Procedure contemplate applications for interpretation with respect to orders. The Tribunal therefore found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant stated in his application that he had not requested management evaluation of the impugned decision. The Applicant cannot now make such request, as it was required to be made 60 days after he was notified of the contested administrative decision (see staff rule 11.2 (c)). That is, 60 days after 18 April 2017, which was the date of the impugned decision. The time to request management review thus expired on 17 June 2017, over a year before the application was made (19 June 2018); Given the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the contested decision, the Tribunal had no...