51ÁÔÆæ

Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

While there are...

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

A a holder of an UN Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration¡¯s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration¡¯s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration¡¯s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration¡¯s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal¡¯s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to ¡°pick and choose¡± what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...

The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant¡¯s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was ¡°ITC¡±, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

The Administration has established that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in a conflict of interest in procurement processes and that he misused UNDP property.

Under relevant rules and regulations, the Applicant clearly had an obligation to disclose fully and accurately his personal connection with Prime Options and St. Paul¡¯s, which were grounds to support a conflict of interest, and to recuse himself from any involvement in the procurement processes involving those two vendors. However, neither did the Applicant disclose the actual or possible conflicts of...

The application fails in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not discharged the burden of proving improper motives or bias against the Respondent.

Of all the eight alleged acts/omissions on which the Applicant based the complaint that his "partially satisfactory" rating was motivated by bias and ill-motive were speculative and the impugned assessment was not tainted by bias or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the fact that the Talent Management Review Group did not afford the Applicant an opportunity to present his case could not, ground a finding of bias and improper motive.