��ż���

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...

The Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal (which were also approved by the General Assembly), expressly provide that “published judgements will normally include the names of the parties.” Even if names were within the ambit of “personal data”, it appears clear that this Tribunal must balance the need for accountability with the need to protect personal data according to the circumstances of each case. In so doing, it is the general practice of this judge to avoid using names, other than the parties, to protect the anonymity of innocent persons somehow involved in the case. As a victim of...

Applicant’s request for anonymization

The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-UNAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the“harm this case has caused” him and the “sensitive information” referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant’s motion was denied.

Receivability

The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...

The Respondent failed to secure the attendance of two victims at the remanded hearing. Four witnesses testified before the Tribunal, including only one victim. None of their testimonies corroborates the charges as laid. On the contrary, they are exculpatory in so far as all three witnesses testify that they did not see the Applicant doing anything improper at the event in question. Accordingly, there is no effective response to the concerns that formed the basis for the Appeals Tribunals’ decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

Neither the allegations memorandum nor the sanction...

The Tribunal decided on its own initiative and in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, to adjudicate the present application by way of summary judgement.

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant filed her application on 5 March 2023 indicating that the contested decision was made in October 1995, that is, more than 27 years earlier. Consequently...

The sensitive nature of the sexual harassment allegations and the fact that the victim may be easily identified by the factual circumstances surrounding the case constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity.

The Complainant’s account of facts in relation to the relevant incidents is credible and reliable. The Applicant failed to adduce any evidence that could have undermined the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence. There is no evidence of ulterior motives on the part of the Complainant.

The Administration succeeded in discharging its burden of proof to show that...

On anonymization Article 11.6 of the Tribunal’s Statute provides in its relevant part that its judgments shall be published while protecting personal data. A similar provision is contained in art. 26.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Given that the present case relies on medical evidence to support a claim for moral harm, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to redact the Applicant’s name from this judgment. On the merits Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded the following. First, the Tribunal found that the two charges against the Applicant were established as per...

Procedural issue: anonymity In the present case, the sensitive information regarding the Applicant’s medical history and his mental health status constitutes exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity. Therefore, the Applicant’s name is anonymized in the present judgment. Scope of judicial review It is within the Tribunal’s competence to hold a hearing or look at facts that were allegedly not before the decision-maker to determine whether relevant factors have been ignored. This is fundamentally different from a de novo investigation into the facts underlying the disciplinary...

A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01’s medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant’s handling of V01’s complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant’s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

Although not constitutive...

The Tribunal found that the PCO’s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define “personal data”, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the UNDT and UNAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...