51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record, established that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant was involved in the fraudulent scheme and in the attempt to interfere with the investigation into that scheme by inducing a witness to lie to investigators.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that the established facts qualified as serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and disciplinary process.

On whether the sanction was...

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant¡¯s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal¡¯s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal¡¯s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he ¡°failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience¡±.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear...

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. Permitting a female individual (¡°F01¡±), who was not a United Nations personnel and who did not receive prior authorization for United Nations transport, to be transported in the vehicle, enabling the behaviour of Mr. Antoine, the rear passenger of the United Nations vehicle, who held F01 closely to his body while she was seated on top of him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner, while Mr. Antoine held F01 with his hand on her buttock and while he pulled her genital area closer to his crotch. These events...

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. for having, on 21 May 2020, while in a United Nations vehicle clearly visible from a public street in Tel Aviv, Israel, held a female individual closely to his body while she was seated on his lap facing him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner; these events were captured in an 18-second video-clip, which was widely disseminated, bringing the Organization into disrepute (count one);

b. for failure to cooperate with the OIOS investigations by refusing to provide OIOS with the contact details of a material witness...

The right of the Applicant to a correct level of classification of the post and a fair level of pay derives from the effective functions performed in the years, always the same at least from 2018, functions which - according to the acknowledgement of the Administration itself - correspond to the FS-5 level.

The Applicant is entitled to a compensation calculated as the difference in salary, allowances, and other entitlements between the FS-5 level and the FS-4 level, for the period November 2018 to September 2022, plus interest at the rate correspondent to the rate of inflation, including the...

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna were not authentic. The Tribunal held that this was enough to substantiate the accusation that the Applicant used false documents to receive improper and undue economic benefits from Cigna. The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in misconduct through his submission of a fraudulent...

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.

The Tribunal held that tax reimbursement is governed by a specific and unique legal regime carefully deliberated upon by the General Assembly. Staff regulation 3.3(f) cannot be read into ¡°other payments¡± in staff rule 3.17(ii).

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant¡¯s understanding that payments under staff rule 3.17(ii) relate to all staff and all nationalities of the United Nations and are not restricted only to USA citizens as in the case for reimbursement of income tax under staff regulation 3.3(f). Hence, the two cannot be read together or have same application.

The Tribunal also agreed...

The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant¡¯s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.

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.