51�Թ�

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The UNAT rejected the former staff member’s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association.  The UNAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the UNDT.

In any event, the UNAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request. 

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu’s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1.  The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization’s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

The UNAT found that the UNDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu’s application as not receivable ratione temporis.  The UNAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu’s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the UNDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

The UNAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the UNAT for the first time.  Even if these were considered, the UNAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

The UNAT held that the UNDT Judge was not obligated to indicate their inclination on the evidence, especially since all evidence had not yet been presented. 

Considering various elements, including the Investigation Report, the WhatsApp message exchanges, and the former staff member’s admissions, the UNAT found the Complainant’s account of events credible.  It concluded that the former staff member’s alleged conduct of calling the Complainant to his room on 1 August 2020 and asking her to come to his bed was established by clear and convincing evidence and amounted to sexual harassment.  It...

The UNAT held that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct.  Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member.  The UNAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The UNAT...

The UNAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former UNHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima’s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe. 

The UNDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless “equivocal” (unclear/vague), “purely circumstantial” and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee). 

With regard to...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent’s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent’s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

The UNAT found that the UNDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome. 

In particular, the UNAT found that the UNDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General’s witnesses. The UNDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation’s findings. The UNAT found that the UNDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

The UNAT held that the Appellant’s travel was not authorized pursuant to Staff Rule 7.10 because she had just one approved day of annual leave on 24 June 2021 followed by a period of R&R from the 12 July to 16 July 2021.  The UNAT also found that the Administration took the appropriate action by sending her on 25 July 2021 an e-mail reminding her that all the international staff members had to submit their Sudanese visa renewal application in a timely manner.  The UNAT held that the events that delayed the Appellant’s return to her duty station could not be construed as force majeure as they...