Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that “a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis” (see Manco 2013-UNAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...
Showing 681 - 690 of 690
The ASG/OIOS was appointed as OiC by the previous USG/OIOS pending the appointment of a new head of entity. The mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term does not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid and there is no allegation or evidence that subdelegations to the ASG/OIOS as OiC/OIOS were withdrawn or modified by the new USG/OIOS. Rather, in the contested decision, the ASG/OIOS used his title as OiC/OIOS. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the contested decision was made by the authorized responsible official. While the OiC/OIOS’s decision does not refer to the specific...
The contested decision fell within the Administration’s margin of appreciation and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. Under the applicable legal framework, the Applicant is not entitled to force the Administration to investigate her complaint. To the contrary, the responsible official is provided with a discretion to initiate or not to initiate an investigation under the applicable legal framework. The decisionmaker reasonably decided not to investigate the Applicant’s complaint in light of the alleged harasser’s resignation. The decision was also procedurally compliant as the...
It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to evaluate the correctness of the contested decision but rather examine whether the Administration respected the bounds of its discretionary power in reaching it. While the Applicant alleged that evidence was ignored and that OIOS investigators were biased against him, he provided no detail in support of these assertions. Tribunal was satisfied that OIOS interviewed all relevant witnesses with respect to the incidents of alleged sexual misconduct and reviewed the available documentation. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the conclusion that the...
The Tribunal held that with respect to the decisions of June 2018 on deductions on account of child support and 24 September 2018 on recording the Applicant’s status as “divorced”, the application is not receivable. The Tribunal rescinded the decision of 18 September 2018, because as admitted by the Respondent in his response to Order No. 190 (NBI/2020), this administrative decision had been issued in error. All other pleas were rejected.
Irregularities in connection with a process, including alleged delay in reaching a final decision, may only be challenged in the context of an application contesting the conclusion of an entire process. Indeed, this final administrative decision, which concludes the compounded administrative process in administering a staff member’s complaint, is the only challengeable one and absorbs all the previous preliminary steps. The Tribunal noted from the record that the investigation of the Applicant’s FRO’s complaint had been completed and OHR had provided its assessment on the case. It further...
The Tribunal found that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarized, was implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person and the right to challenge this decision, founding the claim on specific grounds related to the Administration’s assessment of the facts. The jrusiprudence acknowleges the right of the complainant to have a summary of the report is recognized too, and it is confirmed that only under exceptional circumstances...
The Tribunal found that there was a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant created a hostile work environment and that she unlawfully interfered with recruitment process for P-2 TJO. The Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant’s actions, as established by the facts, were abuse of the Applicant’s authority as Director at the D-2 level and constitute misconduct under the above-mentioned legal framework. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Administration’s finding that the Applicant...
The facts in support of both counts leveled against the Applicant (count 1: creating a hostile, offensive and humiliating work environment for one staff member and count 2: abuse of authority concerning the recruitment and employment of a consultant) have been established in the case at hand not only by preponderance of evidence, the applicable threshold, but also by clear and convincing evidence. The established facts were in violation of the applicable legal framework, namely ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/AI/2013/4. Cases involving the creation of a hostile and offensive work environment have...
Having examined the evidence on file, particularly the panel’s investigation report and its annexes, the Tribunal is satisfied that OHCHR properly handled the Applicant’s complaint against his FRO, and that the case record fully supports the reasonableness of the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against said FRO. The Tribunal further observes that the Applicant’s due process rights as set forth in ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/AI/2017/1 were respected. The Applicant was inter alia interviewed and given an opportunity to provide his version of events and informed of the outcome of his...