The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate and without prejudice to the Applicant¡¯s right, if necessary, to file an application under art. 2.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute seeking to enforce the implementation of the agreement reached through mediation.
While the delay in the investigation process in this case constituted a breach of the requirements of promptness in ST/SGB/2005/8, the investigation of the Applicant¡¯s complaint of prohibited conduct was ongoing as opposed to making no progress at all. The Respondent¡¯s submission provided the Applicant with a full explanation of the reasons for the delays, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held was a sufficient remedy in all the circumstances. Moral Damages - Not every breach will give rise to an award of moral damages as a result of a breach of the procedural due process entitlements and that other entitlement to...
If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply ¡°give¡± the Applicant another position within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate...
ReceivabilityThe placement of a staff member on administrative leave is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. It is an administrative decision for the purposes of art. 8.1 (c) of the Statute and within the well settled meaning of an administrative action as laid down in Andronov. The Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to determine the validity of an administrative decision unless it has been first referred to the Management Evaluation Unit pursuant to art.11.2 of the Staff Rules. In the absence of management evaluation of the decision to place the Applicant on administrative leave...
The Tribunal ruled that the transfer within the recipient organization does not fall within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction and that, hence, the application was irreceivable ratione materiae in this respect. Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF's alleged failure to intervene to prevent the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, while conceding that the Organization has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its employees, the Tribunal found that such duty had not been breached in this case, since the Applicant informed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF of her reassignment only a few days before she ceased being a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF staff member following her inter-organization...
The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent¡¯s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant¡¯s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...
Moral Damages ¨C The need for compensation must be demonstrated by evidence of damages or injuries. The grounds that support an award for moral damages include delay, frustration, distress and anxiety. Damages for moral injury may arise from a breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed or where there is evidence produced of harm, stress or anxiety caused to the staff member which can be directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his or her...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision was in violation of an express written promise of renewal for three months by the head of her mission.
The Applicant contests OSLA's decisions of 5 November 2013 not to represent him in two of the cases he had at the time pending at the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. It rejected the application on the merits, on the grounds that the decisions constituted a legal exercise of discretion on the part of OSLA, which had provided the Applicant with extensive legal assistance, had carefully considered all the issues and gave valid reasons on why it would not represent the Applicant. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that OSLA...
Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether it has the requisite jurisdiction to make a determination on an application for interpretation of an order as opposed to a final judgment. Noting that: (i) there is no provision in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute or Rules of Procedure governing interpretation of orders or expressly prohibiting interpretation of a decision that is labeled ¡°Order¡±; and (ii) that regardless of whether decisions on applications for suspension of action are labeled as orders or judgments, they determine substantial issues, the Tribunal, pursuant to articles 19 and 36 of the Rules of...
