51ÁÔÆæ

The Victim clearly had a motive not to tell the truth before the Tribunal. And she had an interest in the outcome of this case since continued payments fromthe Applicant depended on his continued employment with the United Nations in Congo. She even agreed that she was concerned about how she would survivewithout financial support from the Applicant. For all these reasons, the Tribunal did not find her testimony in court to be credible and relied instead on the statements she made before the Applicant¡¯s payments. A similar analysis applied to the Applicant¡¯s testimony. He too had an obvious...

The disciplinary decision was based on two allegations: first, that the staff member committed a physical assault during a domestic dispute; and second, that the staff member failed to immediately report an arrest and criminal proceedings to the Secretary?General, contrary to staff rule 1.5(d). Regarding the assault allegation, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient and compelling. It relied on contemporaneous police records, a judicial order of protection identifying the staff member as the aggressor, photographic evidence of injury, consistent sworn statements obtained during the...

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent¡¯s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...

Receivability

After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the challenge to the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post and terminate his continuing appointment was not receivable. It held that the only matter before it was the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s employment to cover his sick leave, but instead to terminate his appointment and separate him while he was on certified sick leave.

Merits

First, the Tribunal assessed whether the Applicant was on certified sick leave at the time of his separation on 31 December 2023.

Although sick leave was not formally recorded...

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present. The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.