MONUSCO

1. The decision by MONUSCO Human Resources to withhold the P.35 form was unlawful because the authority to withold said form is is expressly delegated solely to the USG/DMSPC. 2. The Administration failed to act swiftly in this matter. 3. The application floundered on the requirement of irreparable damage. Mere economic loss only is not enough to satisfy the requirement of irreparable damage. 4. The consequential damages that the Applicant claimed as a result of the economic loss (his alleged inability to pay for food, housing and education) are all damages that could be recovered should the...

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to submit evidence of the legitimate investigative activity that was taken in connection with this case from the date on which the Administration received the report of possible misconduct until the date of the decision to withhold the Applicant’s final entitlements and pension paperwork. In order to determine whether any delays in this case were an aberration or examples of systematic problems, the Tribunal also directed the Respondent to submit similar information for all of the 225 MONUSCO Medical Insurance Plan fraud investigations.

The Tribunal held:

a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela UNDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

c. The claim alleging prevention of the...

On delegation on authority, the Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity avoids the need for proof absent a prima facie case. This argument is entirely correct. The Respondent was required to and submitted email correspondence between the ASG/OHRM and the USG/DMSPC regarding this case. In that correspondence, the ASG/OHRM attaches her recommendation to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, along with a “detailed analysis in the body to the recommendation.” In response, the USG/DMSPC writes“Recommendation approved.” The Tribunal was therefore convinced that the contested...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant’s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered “N/A” when asked after “is your...

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by UNFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by UNFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...

The Tribunal found that in this case, the evidence adduced by the Respondent was neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to show that it was highly probable that the Applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and thus had failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to:

a. Rescind the decision to separate the Applicant from service;

b. Set the amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay in lieu of implementing the rescission at two years net salary with interest at the US prime rate from...

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.