Â鶹´«Ã½

The Applicant did not request the complainant's testimony and therefore waived his right to cross-examine her despite being allowed the opportunity to make such request in due course during these proceedings. The complainant¡¯s account remained detailed, coherent and consistent in her complaint and in the interview with the investigators. It was also largely corroborated by the statement of the colleague to whom she promptly reported the incident.The Tribunal also notes the absence of any evidence suggesting ill-motive on the side of the complainant. This evidence meets the standards laid out...

The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The UNDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.

Considering that the Tribunal¡¯s competence is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply and even if not raised by the parties (see Gehr 2013-UNAT-313; Boutroue UNDT/2014/048), the Tribunal deems it appropriate to decide on the present application by way of summary judgment, as provided for in art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure. The Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that WFP is not one of the...

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...

In the present case, in the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, he explicitly ¡°reserved¡± the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant¡¯s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...

The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant¡¯s cases had been transferred to the UNDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. UNDT/2009/005.

The applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Outcome: Application was rejected.