Home

The Applicant, who was then the holder of a Service Contract with the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP”) in Belarus, contested the decision to deduct from his salary costs generated by his use of the Country Office’s Internet resources. Facts 2. The Applicant was hired in June 2010 under a Service Contract by UNDP in Belarus to serve as a driver until 31 December 2010. 3. During the months of September, October and November 2010, the Applicant downloaded from the Internet video and audio files using an office computer, which resulted in an increase of the Internet costs incurred by the Country Office. 4. At the end of November 2010, it was decided to recover from the Applicant a partial amount of the Internet costs incurred by the Country Office as a result of his actions. 5.

Koutang’s involvement in an internet café. A meeting of the Career Review Group (“CRG”) reviewed Mr. (...) Koutang’s outside activities had on his work and availability and the possible use of the Offices internet connection for running an internet café that he had links with. 8. (...) Not only was private internet usage allowed, but the management had thought about offering home connections to staff members.

For privacy and security reasons, she seeks to “make all efforts to expunge [her] name and any other private information from the Internet, wherever possible, including in this judgment”. 3. (...) Moreover, since the Judgment has been published and is available on the Internet, it is unlikely that redaction of the Appeals Tribunal Judgment would assist Ms.

For privacy and security reasons, she seeks to “make all efforts to expunge [her] name and any other private information from the Internet, wherever possible, including in this judgment”. 3. (...) Moreover, since the Judgment has been published and is available on the Internet, it is unlikely that redaction of the Appeals Tribunal Judgment would assist Ms.

At the Tribunal’s request, on 29 February 2016, Counsel for the Applicant provided her internet browser’s recent history log. Applicant’s submissions 9. (...) Further hours were lost because Google Chrome, the browser installed on the computer of Counsel for the Applicant, did not work, although the website of the Office of Administration of Justice reads that, while “[t]he eFiling portal is designed to be used with Internet Explorer … Google Chrome also works”. This was exacerbated by the fact that the access to the eFiling portal of Counsel for the Applicant was dysfunctional until Case No. (...) Indeed, while Counsel for the Applicant experienced difficulties to login at some point, the history of her internet browser as well as the internal electronic records of the Tribunal show that the first attempts to file the application were only made in the early hours of 23 February 2016.

Koutang’s involvement in an internet café. A meeting of the Career Review Group (“CRG”) reviewed Mr. (...) Koutang’s outside activities had on his work and availability and the possible use of the Office’s internet connection for running an internet café that he had links with (...) ” … A tenant who occupied an office in the same building as the Infogenie internet cafe complained that Infogenie’s employees had frequent access to the roof of the building where some of Infogenie’s equipment was stationed.