Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In accordance with staff rule 4.3, when a staff member has been legally accorded nationality status by more than one state, the staff member¡¯s nationality for purposes of the Staff Regulations and the Staff Rules shall be the nationality of the State to which the staff member is, in the opinion of the Secretary-General, most closely associated.In light of the provisions of staff rule 4.3, and in absence of any evidence that the discretion granted the Secretary-General by that rule has been exercised arbitrarily, in an abusive manner or vitiated by improper motives, the Tribunal finds that the...

The Tribunal noted that the delegation of authority in disciplinary matters from the SG to the USG for Management in July 2009 had not been published and as such lacked a substantial requirement for taking legal effect. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the USG for Management could not further delegate this power to another person, since any kind of ¡°sub-delegation¡± should have been provided for in the initial delegation of authority by the SG to the USG for Management, which was not the case. The decision to dismiss the Applicant was taken by the OIC, USG for Management. The Tribunal found...

The Tribunal rejected the application and awarded costs for abuse of process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the contested decision had been rescinded by the Prosecutor, ICTY, and hence the application was moot. The Applicant contended however that the decision had already been implemented since she was no longer assigned any appeals-related work. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT examined whether her new functions were commensurate with her functional title of Senior Appeals Counsel (P-5), and whether the Prosecutor, ICTY, was entitled to assign her to such tasks. It found that pursuant to staff rule 1.2 (c) and Annex IV to ST/AI/234/Rev.1, the Administration had broad discretionary powers when it comes...

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

Legitimate interest in the outcome of the case: Given that an Applicant has no option of returning to the post he formerly encumbered, any decision regarding the classification of that post cannot impact his rights. There exists no direct legal consequence between any classification decision and his terms of appointment; therefore the application is not receivable.

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...

The Tribunal found that the ICTR management was right to comply with the checking out procedures by withholding the Applicant¡¯s checkout since had been part of a committee that had not rendered financial accounts. The Applicant had been a member of an executive committee that had left office without accounting for finances during their tenure which prompted the ICTR management to withhold some of the Applicants entitlements until such accountability is undertaken. Accountability: The Applicant cannot reap a harvest of compensation from his own lack of accountability. He did not deny that he...

Reasons for non-renewal: A staff member has a right to ask the administration to provide for reasons of non-renewal of his/her contract; if he/she does not ask, then he/she cannot claim not to have been given reasons for the decision and seek to infer negative inference. Fraught working relationship: If a staff member¡¯s work relationship with his/her superiors has deteriorated to the extent that there is no possibility of salvaging such a relationship, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion not to renew such a contract.

The Applicant alleged that his due process rights were breached and that the sanction was not proportional. Upon review, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent correctly established the facts but did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances. The sanction applied is therefore too harsh and is modified by the Tribunal. The contested decision is rescinded and the Applicant is to be reinstated. The disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities applied to him is replaced with the sanctions of a written...

The Applicant¡¯s letter of appointment stated that his appointment was subject to termination in the interest of the Organization, as determined by the Secretary-General. By signing his letter of appointment, the Applicant agreed that his appointment could be terminated, in addition to the reasons stated in the staff regulations and rules, this additional discretionary clause. The Tribunal considers that the determination of the interest of the Organization is the Secretary¡¯s General exclusive attribute and the circumstances under which the Secretary-General is to determine ¡°the interest of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the Applicant¡¯s initial complaint was meeting all the requirements contained in sec. 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It noted that the decision not to initiate a formal fact-finding investigation was made only six months after the complaint had been lodged hence it did not meet the requirement of ¡®promptness¡¯ contained in sec. 5.3 and sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the course of action chosen by the ASG/OHRM, which consisted in asking first the alleged offender for his views, had no legal basis in ST/SGB/2008/5. Having considered the definition of the...

The Tribunal concluded that: (a) the selection process for the post of D/ACGSD was not handled correctly and lawfully due to apparent bias on the part of the ASP and that he suffered prejudice/damage as a result; and (b) the Applicant was not the victim of harassment and discrimination in relation to this case. Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. The Tribunal concluded that the Advisory Selection Panel (ASP) in the present...

Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. On the basis of the evidence about negative views held by one of the interview panel members about the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the test for apparent bias had been made out. Harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority: The Tribunal concluded that in spite of the adverse finding that the Applicant did not receive full and fair consideration in his application for the...

The Tribunal concluded that the filling of the post by lateral transfer on the retirement of the incumbent was in breach of ST/AI/2003/8. Lateral transfer: The Tribunal held that as a lateral move is a discretionary measure, its use must be in accordance with the established procedural rules and must not be arbitrary or motivated by factors inconsistent with proper administration or based on erroneous, fallacious or improper motivation. The Tribunal concluded that the use of a lateral transfer in this case was an arbitrary use of the discretion conferred by ST/AI/2010/3 in light of the fact...

The Tribunal held that the decision to appoint a staff member to the post of Director/RIITD off the roster without consideration of the other candidates (including the Applicant) who had applied to the post was unlawful. It failed to give the Applicant full and fair consideration for the post and denied him due process. Roster based selection: The Tribunal noted that the General Assembly resolutions on human resources management reiterate the principle of transparency in the selection process and the need for vacancies to be advertised and held that there is no transparency in a process that...

Management Evaluation - It was held that the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the Tribunal operate on different deadlines and receivability thresholds and that the Tribunal cannot be bound by the findings of the MEU regarding the receivability of a case. Receivability - The Tribunal found that in this case, the entire 26 month period during which the Applicant was estranged from the Organization formed part of the same continuum punctuated by different contradicting decisions all of which centered on the singular issue of abuse of authority. Given the continuous nature of the Applicant¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision that the Applicant was not eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment was lawful.

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc¡¯ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...