Home

Ganbold’s first reporting officer (FRO) had entered into lease agreements on behalf of UNFPA for the lease of a storage building that belonged to, or was co-owned by, Ms. (...) Ganbold: a) held a financial interest in, or was associated with, the management of the building/premises rented; b) was actively associated with Company 1, Company 2, Ms. (...) The garage facilities were located in a complex of two buildings, one owned by Ms. Ganbold and the other by her husband.

This PIP identified shortcomings in the Applicant’s performance, building on the first PIP, and set new deadlines for achieving the expected results. (...) On 5 May 2015, the Applicant’s FRO completed in Inspira the Applicant’s end-of-cycle performance evaluation covering the period from his initial appointment until 31 March 2015; the FRO rated the Applicant’s performance as “D - Does not meet performance expectations” and commented that: A second PIP has been implemented that builds on the acceleration that was perceived under the first PIP.

Experience: At least 3 years following the completion of a Bachelor’s degree or 2 years following completion of a Master’s degree, of progressively responsible experience in the field of public administration, governance, peace-building, and community relations. … The Applicant, a Turkish-Cypriot, applied for the Position, and his application included a Personal History Profile (“PHP”). 1 Impugned Judgment, paras. 8-9, 12-15, 17, 19-35. (...) [The new CCPO] told the Tribunal that the Applicant’s work as reported in his PHP as a Media Relations consultant and Freelance Interpreter/Translator is not, on the face of it, relevant to the requirements of the JO, which specified experience in public administration, governance, peace-building, and community relations. She further stated that the Applicant’s experience could not be considered as “exceptional” professional experience to be accepted in lieu of an advanced university degree

The complainant had accepted his offer, and he had led her into the basement of the building. While they were walking side by side, he had taken hold of and kissed the complainant’s arm, then put his hand on her back under her clothing. (...) When interviewed for the first time by the Security and Safety Section on 8 August 2005, the Applicant merely acknowledged having met the complainant in the late morning of 4 August, offered to help her and accompanied her to the ground floor of the building, after which he had returned to his office. (...) While he was accompanying her to a part of the buildings, he had invited her to see him outside for a drink, and, in response to a comment by the complainant, he had paid her a compliment and then put his hand on her thigh without her showing any reaction.

The Applicant joined ICTR in 1997 on a fixed-term appointment as a Labourer in Building Management Services (BMS), which was part of the General Services and Support Section (GSSS) consequently having served with the ICTR for a total of 14 years.

Among the four options envisaged to overcome the problems encountered was the appointment of a new Representative in Budapest, which was justified as follows: The continued failure by the principal protagonists to engage constructively in building relations between the Representation and the RSUB may require a change of Representative. (...) The other options proposed were an inspection, a team-building exercise facilitated by the Staff Counsellor, and the intervention of the Mediator.

In addition, the Guidelines for programme case officers on building vacancy announcements and evaluation criteria under ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1, which were approved on 11 June 2003, state: The Evaluation Criteria should be substantively similar to the published VA. (...) Aside from the fact that, in the view of the Tribunal, the definition of evaluation criteria as per ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 contradicts the Respondent’s first contention, the Guidelines for programme case officers on building vacancy announcements and evaluation criteria under ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 clearly state that “special conditions or limitations” should be mentioned in the vacancy announcement.

Because of her placement on SLWFP and the order issued by UNFPA to bar her from admission into the UN city building, she was prejudiced in her search for a new post; this had an impact on her personal situation as she was denied permanent residency status in Denmark due to her lack of employment; she also felt humiliated when she was not allowed to enter the UN city building to attend an interview for a new position in another Organization; e.

According to his fact sheet, he is commended for his capacity to build and develop productive relationships with various actors, such as UN agencies, civil society actors, academia, NGOs and advocacy groups to contribute to a greater understanding of UNHCR[’s] mandate and operations. (...) According to his fact sheet, he is commended for his capacity to build and develop productive relationships with various actors, such as UN agencies, civil society actors, academia, NGOs and advocacy groups to contribute to a greater understanding of UNHCR[’s] mandate and operations.

The Applicant joined OHCHR on 19 July 2004 as a P-3 Human Rights Officer in the Africa Unit, Capacity Building and Field Operations Branch (“CBB”), on a three-month short-term appointment.