Search
The allegations that the Applicant improperly used his UNDP-issued laptop to access websites that contained pornography and other sexually explicit material and advertised escort services, has been established by clear and convincing evidence based on the investigations forensic report of his computer, the Applicant's partial admittance and several contradictions.There is also clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in three instances of unauthorised outside activities by being the Director and major shareholder of a company, and engaging in other business ventures in...
The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.
There is sufficient documentary evidence on record showing that the Applicant was properly made aware of the performance shortcomings he needed to address and improve. He was placed on a PIP that was structured and designed specifically for him, and he was provided with adequate support and guidance to improve.
Having identified, documented, and addressed the Applicant’s performance shortcomings through the applicable rules, the decision not to renew his FTA based on unsatisfactory service, taken after the Applicant was found not to have improved his performance despite being given the...
Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal
The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG did not constitute an express promise to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing.
There is no evidence of a firm commitment to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. While the Applicant sought to rely on the CITO/ASG’s verbal statements in March...
The issue in this case is whether EG and SEG consist of two independent benefits that can be granted in combination.
Pursuant to sec. 6.1(a) of ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, the overall maximum amount of SEG shall be equal to the upper limit of the top bracket of the global sliding scale applicable to the education grant scheme. The law does not allow an interpretation where EG and SEG can be “stacked”.
Indeed, the difference between EG and SEG is in the percentages of reimbursement that eligible staff members are entitled to receive. This difference in reimbursement percentage addresses the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus she failed to sustain her burden of both production and proof.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to her, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant’s claim for financial and...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant’s claim for financial and...
The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant’s claim for financial and...
With reference to the relevant legal framework, no matter what status is given to the Applicant’s previous and/or current employment with the IOM in the context of the ASHI scheme, at the relevant time of applying for ASHI, the Applicant was not within a time period of 31 days before or after separation when an application for ASHI must be submitted.
Accordingly, even if the terms of the contested decision were misleading, the Applicant had no right to be enrolled in the ASHI scheme when he applied for it.
Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal
The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG in March 2022 could not have constituted an express promise to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing (see Kellie, para. 44). Contrary to the Applicant’s suggestion, the verbal statement was not sufficient to support a firm commitment or an entitlement to...
This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.
The application is dismissed.
The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.
In the present case, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing it, the Applicant was not a staff member, and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment with UNOPS.
Furthermore, UNOPS and UNGSC are two different entities of the UN system. While the Applicant was a former staff member of UNOPS, he had no employment relationship with UNGSC. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the contested position with UNGSC.
The Applicant acknowledged that “there...