51ÁÔÆæ

Rescission and in lieu compensation under art. 10.5(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute

Considering that the evidence provided by the Respondent showed that the duration of most of the former renewals of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment including the last regular renewal was for a duration of one year and that there is no expectation of renewal for a fixed-term appointment, the Tribunal determined that the amount of in lieu compensation must be equal to one year¡¯s net base salary.

Compensation for harm under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute

The Tribunal reviewed the...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well?substantiated and in line with the...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant¡¯s performance was rated as either ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± or ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± since 2015, except for one cycle in which she ¡°fully met¡± expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

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 Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within UNIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record, established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna for reimbursement were not authentic. Despite the foregoing, the Applicant certified to Cigna that the information he was submitting was ¡°correct and true¡± and was therefore, acknowledging that he was aware of the contents of the medical claim and attesting to its authenticity.

The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. Excluding the fake invoice and the fake medical report, no other...

On the issue of illegality, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been removed from his official functions, without case or proper justification, and had been forced to re-apply for his own previous functions. These decisions were taken without reference to any failings of the Applicant, misconduct, indication that he has not successfully performed his functions in the past, or indication that he would not be able to perform his functions in the future.

On the issue of damages, the Tribunal found that although the Applicant kept on holding a continuing appointment at the D-1 level, he...

The documents on record demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Applicant had rented out his flat in Addis Ababa to two other staff members, based on a lease with an inflated rent (and without paying agent¡¯s fees), and that the latter two used that lease to claim rental subsidy from UNHCR in an amount undue.

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.