Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Tribunal, noting that the Applicant had failed to comply with the time limit set out in former staff rule 111.2(a), focused solely on whether there were ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s mere assertion that she was unable to follow-up and was incapable of submitting a reasoned appeal as a result of psychological and professional stress was inadequate to warrant a waiver of the time limits. Based on the limited submissions of the Applicant, the Tribunal was unable to establish any causal relation between her state of...

Request for review: The Administration should not be excessively formalistic and demand that for a request for review to be considered as such, it must necessarily be addressed to the Secretary-General. However, such a request must be formulated in sufficiently clear terms to be regarded by its addressee as a formal request for review¡ªthat is, as the first compulsory step initiating the appeals procedure provided for by former staff rule 111.2(a)¡ªwhich s/he must then forward to the Secretary-General. Exceptional circumstances/duty to inform staff members: There is no provision requiring the...

The Tribunal considered that the Administration had erred in finding that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. It awarded him USD10,000 for the moral injury he had suffered because of the way in which the matter was dealt with by the Administration. Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: Disagreements on work performance or on other work-related...

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post was a valid exercise of the Organization¡¯s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...

Review of the motivations behind the contested decision: Circumstances intervening after the contested decision was taken may not be considered as showing the motives put forward by the Administration to be false. Even if it was proved that an evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance was conducted after his separation, this is not pertinent in examining the decision not to renew his contract, inasmuch as the motive provided therefor was not unsatisfactory performance. Scope of review by the Tribunal: It is not for the Tribunal to determine, when the Administration decides to close one of its...

The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...

ST/IC/2006/60, the legality of which has not been contested by the Applicant, is clear as far as the rates for relocation grant are concerned. It stipulates on the one hand that for single staff members ¡°separating from service following appointments or assignments of one year or more¡±, the applicable rate is USD10,000, and on the other hand that ¡°for assignments of less than one year¡± the rate is USD1,200. It is clear that the Applicant, who was assigned to Geneva for six months only because he decided to resign, falls within the latter category. The Administration could thus rely on this...

While finding that there had been a procedural flaw in the FOPA evaluation, inasmuch as the Applicant had been denied a rebuttal, the Tribunal considered that there was not causal effect between this flaw and the non-renewal decision, noting that the contested decision refers only to the third and last appraisal, which was made in accordance with the applicable rules. Resolution 59/296 and reappointment of 300 series staff members under 100 series: The said resolution authorises the Secretary-General to reappoint staff members holding an appointment under the 300 series of former Staff Rules...