Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

Due process: The Tribunal held that there were two serious procedural flaws that violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights: (i) the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook unduly restricted the grounds on which the Applicant could rebut her performance appraisal in a way not envisaged by ST/AI/2002/3; and (ii) By misinforming the Applicant and effectively causing her to abandon the other legitimate grounds of rebuttal she had intended to rely on, the Director of Human Resources flawed the whole rebuttal process. Rebuttal process: The Tribunal held that the rebuttal process was also flawed because the Rebuttal Panel...

An ¡°effective remedy¡± under ST/SGB/2008/5: The Tribunal concluded that the Administration is obliged to provide an effective remedy where a complaint of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5 is substantiated. The breadth of possible remedies that may be granted includes, but is not limited to, monetary compensation, rescission and injunctive or protective measures.

Receivability - ST/SGB/2008/5 provides comprehensive procedures, both informal and formal, to a person who alleges that he or she is a victim of prohibited conduct. Although the Applicant complained that the impugned decisions amounted to an abuse of authority, he did not invoke the procedures set up to address such allegations. Accordingly there is no decision made pursuant to the ST/SGB for the Tribunal to review.

The Tribunal considered both applications receivable, and held that both the fact-finding panel and the ICTR Registrar misinterpreted the definition of harassment contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 by finding that an action which happens only at one instance, without any previous or subsequent similar behavior, does not amount to harassment, since harassment normally implies a series of incidents. The Tribunal recalled the definition of harassment and its constitutive elements, which may also include a one-off incident as affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal, and decided to rescind the decision to close...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.

The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...

The Applicant contended, inter alia, that WFP breached her due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings and she did not breach any of the applicable rules. The evidence before the Tribunal sustained the Applicant¡¯s contention that WFP¡¯s investigators did not respect her due process rights. The ground of appeal related to the irregularity of the disciplinary proceeding is accepted and the Tribunal does not need to analyse the rest of the Applicant¡¯s contentions. The rescission of the contested decision is, per se, a fair and sufficient remedy for the moral prejudice caused to the...

The Applicant requests the Tribunal to find that his due process rights were breached, that a copy of the report from the Investigation Panel be produced to him. There is no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not follow the applicable procedures or that his due process rights were not respected. It is within the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion as to whether or not initiate action against a staff member. The case is dismissed.

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU¡¯s writing in the MEU¡¯s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant¡¯s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.