Home

He requests leave to adduce two documents into the evidence: i) a statement dated 27 January 2022 by the author about his report of independent investigation to the UNDP management dated 26 January 2021, and ii) a joint letter dated 2 February 2022 from the Transparency International, the Whistleblowing International Network, and the Government Accountability Project.

It is obvious that the competencies required are widely divergent and the United Nations has classified these two jobs in different job networks: the JOO post is in the Political, Peace and Humanitarian job family and the Supply Chain management post is in the Logistics, Transportation and Supply Chain job network.

The ABCC recommendation is a product of an alleged transnational serious and organized white collar criminal network that colluded and conspired to defraud her of her injury compensation benefit entitlement; Case No. (...) The Applicant also alleges that the ABCC’s recommendation was part of “an alleged transnational serious and organized white collar criminal network”. She seeks to relate this recommendation to a payment of USD587,428.65 that was allegedly made to her account with the United Nations Federal Credit Union (“UNFCU”) and for which the UNFCU is seeking recovery on the basis that it was made in error. 30.

The Applicant, who was initially on secondment from the World Health Organization (“WHO”) but is currently employed on a temporary appointment with UNECA, is working with the African Network for Drugs and Diagnostics Innovation (“ANDI”), which is a joint WHO and United Nations programme. WHO and UNECA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) in October 2010 with a view to promoting and sustaining “African-led health product innovation to address African public health needs through the assembly of research networks and the building of capacity”. Based on the MOU, UNECA is responsible for hosting ANDI.

He was advised to try several steps, including, to refresh the webpage, restart network devices, change his DNS servers and try a different VPN. 15. The Applicant had attempted some of these steps, including refreshing the web page and restarting his network devices. However, he did not know how to try the other more sophisticated steps of changing his DNS servers or trying a different VPN. 16.

He also applied for a transfer of the case to New York or Geneva on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest because the UNDT judge and the UNDT legal officer, who were initially handling the case, were present at an evening function of the Inter-Agency Security Management Network (IASMN) on 1 February 2010. 2. The application to strike out the response was based on the fact that the Applicant was not provided with “a copy of the authority given to Mr.

Staff members at UNHCR can access the network from any workstation, and, furthermore, persons who are not necessarily UNHCR staff members have free access to the building at lunchtime to eat in the cafeteria. (...) The evidence gathered in the course of the investigation is incomplete, questionable, and insufficient to establish that the Applicant committed misconduct: (i) the Administration has not produced the file containing a list of logins to the network. As his computer was not Translated from French Case No. (...) Therefore, the finding in the preliminary investigation report that the Applicant had created that file is erroneous; (v) if the Applicant had logged into the network from a workstation other than his own in order to use a scanner, two IP addresses would have been given for the same period, one for each machine being used; (vi) it is not possible to determine, from the log file of the print server, either the properties or the name of the document the Applicant produced on the default printer assigned to his computer.

As a member of the team, the Applicant “had unrestricted access to shared network resources, internal databases and generic [ALS] email inboxes, thus access to sensitive information of relevance to UNSU matters and other material prepared in view of litigation initiated by UNSU or in relation to UNSU matters”. (...) The Respondent submits that limiting the Applicant’s access to these shared network resources, internal databases and generic [ALS] email inboxes “posed a real operational challenge, as the network resources, internal databases and generic AAS email inboxes are shared to all team members without restrictions”.

He was advised to try several steps, including, to refresh the webpage, restart network devices, change his DNS servers and try a different VPN. 13. The Applicant had attempted some of these steps, including refreshing the web page and restarting his network devices. However, he did not know how to try the other more sophisticated steps of changing his DNS servers or trying a different VPN. 14.

., a Report of the Independent Review (“RIR”) dated 16 January 2021, a correspondence from Transparency International to the UNDP Administrator, dated 26 November 2021, and from the Government Accountability Project and Whistleblowing International Network to officials of the GEF Secretariat, dated 8 December 2021) as relevant evidence of the mishandling of the Applicant’s request in respect to the investigation brought against him. 42. (...) Likewise, the correspondence from Transparency International and the Whistleblowing International Network do not provide any facts or proofs relevant to this analysis, as it only requests further investigation into the Applicant’s allegations. 47.