��ż���

a. Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence on record, the Organization terminated the Applicant’s appointment under staff rule 9.6(c) due to the abolishment of the post that he encumbered. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Applicant’s permanent appointment on the basis of abolishment of his post was procedurally proper and lawful.

b. On the second issue, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence before it, the Organization had fulfilled its obligation under staff rule 9.6(c) to make reasonable and good...

The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal defined the issues for determination as follows:

a. Whether the Applicant had a realistic chance of being selected; and

b. Whether the Applicant suffered any financial loss due to the contested decision.

Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that there were irregularities in the selection process and recommended that the selection exercise be redone. The Under Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) had also...

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of “administrative decision” within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

The Application was granted in part.

The Tribunal rescinded the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant, and ordered reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation in lieu, calculated at two (2) year’s net base salary.

In all other respects, the Respondent’s decision is AFFIRMED and the Applicant’s prayers refused.

In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered “N/A” when asked after “is your...

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by UNFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by UNFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...

interpreting medical reports to determine the cause and extent of medical disabilities is the essence of forensic medicine and the result is clearly a medical determination.

this argument seeks to have the Tribunal second-guess the Administration’s finding that the X-ray camera did not fall on the Applicant’s knee in 2017. That is beyond the purview of this Tribunal. In conducting a judicial review of an administrative decision, the Tribunal must defer to the Administration’s factual findings and may not substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Moreover, it is clear from...

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant’s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...