�鶹��ý

The UNAT held that the UNDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the UNDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020. While Ms. V’s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the UNAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

The UNAT noted that the UNDT’s findings had been based on credible evidence when it determined that the staff member’s son had contracted Covid-19; he had been treated under the supervision of her primary medical care provider; and payment had been made based on invoices from that provider reflecting the care he had provided.

The UNAT was of the view that in light of the testimony of the staff member’s witnesses, including herself and the medical professional who had treated her son, it had not been erroneous for the UNDT to conclude that the Administration had failed to establish the medical...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the UNDT nor on appeal.

The UNAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to UNHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The UNAT found no basis to overturn the UNDT’s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...

The UNAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member’s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the UNDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The UNAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The UNAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The UNAT...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant’s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent’s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent’s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

In the present case, according to the Applicant’s own submissions, he was not in a situation of “an absolute impossibility” of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it “to be perfect”. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...

The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the motion for interim measures concerned appointment, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.

Accordingly, the motion for interim measures during the proceedings was rejected.

In any case, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented as the Applicant had been separated from UNHCR.

As the Applicant filed the application before the Dispute Tribunal almost two months after the decision to include his name in the ClearCheck database was implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.

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...