��ż���

UNAT held that some of the UNDT’s findings were speculative, disregarded the evidence and misapplied the applicable legal framework. In particular, UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member’s conduct was not serious because it endured for a limited duration of time. He not only sexually harassed two women but sexually harassed those two women twice in quick succession. His cumulative behaviour exhibited a disposition, which in this instance caused the complainants significant discomfort and anxiety and impacted on their ongoing professional relationship with him.

UNA...

The sensitive nature of the sexual harassment allegations and the fact that the victim may be easily identified by the factual circumstances surrounding the case constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity.

The Complainant’s account of facts in relation to the relevant incidents is credible and reliable. The Applicant failed to adduce any evidence that could have undermined the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence. There is no evidence of ulterior motives on the part of the Complainant.

The Administration succeeded in discharging its burden of proof to show that...

Procedural issue: anonymity In the present case, the sensitive information regarding the Applicant’s medical history and his mental health status constitutes exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity. Therefore, the Applicant’s name is anonymized in the present judgment. Scope of judicial review It is within the Tribunal’s competence to hold a hearing or look at facts that were allegedly not before the decision-maker to determine whether relevant factors have been ignored. This is fundamentally different from a de novo investigation into the facts underlying the disciplinary...

In all the circumstances, the Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the basis for the finding of misconduct that led to the Applicant’s dismissal. There was no clear and convincing evidence of any factual basis for a finding that the Applicant committed the actions as alleged. The Tribunal found that due process was observed. However, the failure to interview appropriate witnesses adversely detracted from the standard of proof of misconduct achieved by the Respondent. That standard did not reach the level of a clear and convincing case. Of the remedies sought by the...

The Tribunal found that there was ample justification for the decision maker’s plausible conclusion that the Applicant breached his obligation to disclose an actual, or possible, conflict of interest. Although only evidence on a balance of probabilities was required, the evidence presented surpassed that standard and was clear and convincing.

The fact or possibility of such personal interest could impact negatively on the perception of integrity, independence and impartiality required of the Applicant as an international civil servant. The Applicant had a duty was to disclose the actual or...

The Applicant contests his non-selection and being found not suitable for the position advertised under JO 18186. He identified as the contested decision the Management Evaluation Unit's response dated 24 March 2021. However, a management evaluation response is not a judicially reviewable administrative decision. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae. The above notwithstanding, the Tribunal recalls that it falls under its competence “to individualize and define the administrative decision impugned by a party and identify what is in fact being contested and so, subject...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s complaints about lack of due process were without merit. The Applicant did not establish that the Respondent failed to afford him due process in the investigation and disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal recalled that the Applicant was sanctioned for: (i) Misleading the UNHCR’s Global Fleet Management (“GFM”) regarding the extent of the damage to the UNHCR’s vehicle;...

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenged a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation.

The Applicant was notified of the decision in writing by email dated 17 June 2022. Accordingly, he was required to file his application by 15 September 2022. However, the Applicant filed it on 18 September 2022. The application was therefore not filed within the deadlines stipulated by the Tribunal's Statute. Further, the Applicant did not request a waiver of the deadline before filing his late application or in the late application itself. The application was found to not be receivable.

The Applicant received the contested decision on 10 May 2022 thus, she should have requested management evaluation by 9 July 2022 but she did not do so until 13 July 2022. The application was deemed not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within the stipulated time limit.