Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty to comply with an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...

Appealable administrative decision: Both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on the Tribunal¡¯s website are matters of internal organization which do not constitute acts adversely affecting staff members¡¯ rights.

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...

Impartiality of a judge is determined by two tests, subjective and objective. (Campos). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the request for recusal was based on mere fact and no such conflict of interest or professional relationship existed between the honourable Judge and the two Thai nationals named.

The fact that the attempt to defraud the medical claims system was not successful did not diminish the Applicant¡¯s liability in having made a false claim, as such; his actions destroyed the faith of the Organization in the Applicant which was necessary for continuing employment relationship. Proportionality: Although comparison between other similar cases can be referred to, they should be treated with caution as every case turns on its own facts. In determining whether to lessen the imposed sanction, the Tribunal will consider mitigating circumstance that had not been previously considered....

Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.

Application for suspension of action pending management evaluation in disciplinary matters: It is clear from a plain reading of article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure and staff rule 11.2 that the two former provisions apply only where management evaluation is required. In the instant case, the contested decision is a disciplinary measure which can be challenged before the Tribunal without first seeking management evaluation. Thus, the Tribunal cannot rely on these provisions to order the requested suspension of action pending management evaluation...

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before the expiry of the 90-day period, the 90-day period to file an application before the Tribunal starts running again from the date the response is given. Evaluation criteria: It is clear from ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and the Guidelines for programme case...

In view of the Applicant¡¯s submission, the case was found moot and the application was dismissed. The Applicant alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA reneged on an undertaking made in her previous application for suspension of action in May 2012, thus frustrating her temporary engagement. The Respondent submitted that the Administration had no objections to the Applicant going on a non-reimbursable loan, and that successful efforts were made to find the Applicant a temporary assignment with the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIT¡±). The Applicant subsequently filed a submission informing the...