51ÁÔÆæ

Regardless of his appeal of the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity, the Applicant¡¯s failure to honour his private legal obligations under Swiss law violated staff rule 1.2(b) and ST/AI/2010/12 and thus the established facts amount to misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the disciplinary measure imposed in this case was proportionate to the established misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected.

The Applicant¡¯s appointment was not extended beyond its expiration due to the liquidation of the Mission. The decision not to extend the appointment was supported by the evidence and therefore lawful. The fact that the Applicant had incurred in personal debt does not generate an obligation on the Administration to find her an alternate post upon the closure of the Mission.

The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the Tribunal. Thus management evaluation was a prerequisite. The application was filed out of time because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response as required by art. 8.1(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute.

The Respondent did not select the Applicant for GJO 71792 because he failed a competency-based interview. Passing a competency-based interview is a lawful requirement envisioned by art. 101.3 of the United Nations Charter and set by the Staff Regulations and Rules that form an integral part of the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment. The Respondent complied with all the relevant statutory requirements in the selection process leading to the contested decision. It was clear from the jurisprudence that the Applicant¡¯s argument that the Administration should have considered his previous scores in...

Once he was notified that he would not be separated from the Organization, the Aplicant was not entitled to a repatriation grant for his dependents. By allowing his family to travel back to his country of origin regardless, he incurred the liability of an overpayment of the repatriation grant to which he was not entitled. The Organization was entitled to recover the overpayment from the Applicant.

The Tribunal is aware that one thing is a budgetary provision, although assessed as operational, and that another thing is the concrete ed effective availability of the funds to be used to cover staff costs. In this case, however, the Respondent, who bears on this issue the burden to prove the specific and concrete financial situation, gave no evidence about the alleged cash problems or inconsistency of the budget. The decision by the Organization to terminate the Applicant¡¯s continuing appointment is therefore not justified and unlawful. Furthermore, the decision was not preceded by the due...

If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s allegations were unsubstantiated and therefore, found no basis to impugn the contested decision. As a result, the application was dismissed in its entirety.

A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with UNFIL involving the United Nations Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...

The fact that the Applicant stated the same erroneous date in the two separate communications clearly and convincingly showed that the Applicant did so deliberately¡ªit was not just a simple typographical mistake. Having found that the Applicant had intentionally misrepresented a divorce date in two separate communications, including an official form, resulting in his unjust enrichment, it clearly fell within the Administration¡¯s latitude of discretion to conclude that the Applicant had committed misconduct. Considering the gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misrepresentations, including the...