51ÁÔÆæ

Since it was ECOWAS and not UNSD that took the decision not to attribute the applicant for her contributions to the ECOWAS Poverty Profile, this decision is therefore not a decision in respect of which the respondent, ie, the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Office of the United Nations, has any responsibility. Even if the ultimate decision to exclude the applicant from attribution was that of ECOWAS, it could, nevertheless, be held that the administrative decision in question was that UNSD decided to accept the decision of ECOWAS in respect of the applicant, contrary to its...

The appeal is withdrawn and the case is closed.

The applicant, then a staff member, applied and was short-listed for the Galaxy-advertised post of ASG/DESA. The notice stated that the candidacies of all UN staff members were to be ¡°considered first¡±, that is to say, in priority to external candidates, and via a procedure akin to that of ST/AI/2006/3. The person appointed was not a UN staff member and the applicant challenged the decision to appoint them. At around the time of the applicant¡¯s application for the post, he was the subject of various widely publicized investigations. The respondent initially claimed that the decision not to...

The main evidence against the Applicant was the testimony of the driver who claimed that he had been asked by the Applicant to bring a carton to Dire Dawa. The Respondent claimed that a printer was missing from the inventory list. The driver¡¯s testimony was credible, especially since he was able to provide precise details on the printer¡¯s bar code and the serial number. In view of the overwhelming evidence that the Applicant had shown a pattern of misconduct, including the storage of obscene material on his official computer, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent established a prima...

The Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence tendered before it in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absences. The Tribunal is not convinced that the reasons proffered by the Applicant to explain his unauthorized absences were beyond his control. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant was given ample opportunity to address this performance shortcoming. The Tribunal is satisfied, in consideration of the requirements of section 8.3 of ST/AI/2002/3, that the ICTR Administration had taken steps to rectify the situation in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absenteeism.

UNDT found that the Applicant, requested on two occasions to make the necessary corrections to her application, had failed to do so. UNDT dismissed the application finding that the Applicant is no longer interested in pursuing her case.

The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.

The Tribunal is entitled to examine the entire case before it. In other words, the Tribunal may consider not only the administrative decision of the Secretary-General imposing disciplinary measures but also examine the material placed before him on which he bases his decision in addition to other facts relevant to the said material. The rush by the investigators to produce a prejudiced report dripping with innuendos, riddled with ridiculous findings and which completely and unjustly tars the Applicant with a brush of criminality must be loudly condemned by this Tribunal.

When the Applicant filled his PT8 form, he claimed daily subsistence allowance (DSA) for the period he would spend in Geneva for training purposes when he was fully aware that he was proceeding there to meet with an NGO or to have consultations with colleagues at HQ. As the purpose of his travel had changed he used funds earmarked for training for a different purpose without obtaining prior written authorisation. There was a note on his PT8 form that during January, the Applicant was on leave but this was not sufficient to absolve him. He received DSA for the period he was away from the...

The Tribunal found established the facts of which he was accused and considered they constituted misconduct, no irregularity was identified in the procedure and the sanctions were not deemed disproportionate. However, unlike the written censure and demotion, the prohibition of promotion for a certain period of time was not among the range of disciplinary measures foreseen in former staff rule 110.3 (a), which rendered its imposition unlawful, pursuant to the principle nulla poena sine lege. Hence, the said sanction was rescinded and CHF1000 granted as compensation for the loss of chances...