Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The parties agreed that the facts were not contested and that the issue for the Tribunal¡¯s consideration was whether the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities was proportionate to the Applicant¡¯s conduct. Taking the mitigation circumstances into consideration, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the sanction was not proportionate to the facts and substituted it for the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnities. The Tribunal agrees with the facts that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was improper and that she...

Receivability - Mr. Wallace as a Legal Officer in MEU had the requisite delegated authority to make an exception to the Staff Rules in suspending the time limits for the Applicant to request for management evaluation as he did in the present case. The Applicant¡¯s case was therefore held in abeyance until 30 March 2011. The Applicant, as a result, had until 30 June 2011 to file her Application which she did on 6 June 2011. Full and fair consideration - All the candidates that appear before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. A candidate challenging the denial of a...

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, ratione materiae, since the Applicant failed to file a timely request for management evaluation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable, for he only requested management evaluation of the two decisions years after he knew, or should have reasonably known, of the Administration¡¯s inaction.

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to OHRM¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision was expressly reversed and rendered moot when the Department of Field Support completed its review of the Applicant¡¯s case and determined that the Applicant met the remaining eligibility criteria for conversion to a continuing appointment. The Tribunal noted the general principle that where an impugned decision has been corrected by the Administration before a challenge to the Tribunal has been determined; it is in the power of the Tribunal to find that the challenge...

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

The Tribunal granted the application in part as the reasons provided for the Applicant¡¯s termination, notably end of appointment and abolition of post, were incorrect and therefore unlawful (the decision was rather based on the Applicant¡¯s health). As relief, the Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s request for pecuniary compensation consisting in net-base salary from her separation date and until her retirement and ordered that the Applicant should also receive compensation in the amount equal to the contributions (staff member¡¯s and the Organization¡¯s) that would have been paid to the United...

The Tribunal granted the application in part and awarded the Applicant USD18,000 in moral damages: USD3,000 for each of the six RC position for which she applied in her August and November 2013 job applications (the appeal against other non-selection decisions was not found receivable as it had been made out of time). When assessing the Applicant¡¯s relevant applications, it was unlawful for the EG to not nominate the Applicant as this decision was based on her 2012 performance appraisal report, which, at the given time, was still under rebuttal, and not on the last three performance appraisal...

The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific categories of decisions: those taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies and...