Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT deemed it appropriate to decide on the application, without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply. The Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the contested decision, but failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable.
The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect to the 2011¨C2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...
The actions taken by the Chief of the Regional Service Center Entebbe (C/RSCE) towards the Applicant amounted to a clear breach of the authority entrusted to her as C/RSCE. Her conduct fell squarely within the definition contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 which is ¡°the improper use of a position of influence, power or authority against another person¡±. It was reasonably inferred that the C/RSCE either deliberately or negligently ignored the principles governing the role of a manager or supervisor contained in the 2014 Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The Respondent failed to...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...
The Tribunal issued a summary judgment dismissing the application as premature and not receivable. The Applicant had not waited for the outcome of his request for management evaluation or the expiration of the 30-day time limit for the Management Evaluation Unit to respond to the request.
Interpretation of art. 10.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal - The question arises whether the Tribunal should seek and obtain the concurrence of the Secretary-General before correcting a procedural error in the decision making process of the ABCC or the Secretary-General himself. The Tribunal in the circumstances of the present case is not prepared to allow its power of judicial review to be circumscribed by art. 10.4. It is not deemed that the concurrence of the Secretary-General is necessary to take the appropriate remedial measure if this is found to be necessary. The Secretary...
There was a valid offer of employment made to the Applicant, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the Applicant acquired the status of an individual entitled to seek redress before the Tribunal. The act of requesting the waiver following the issuance, and acceptance, of the offer of appointment formed part of a continuum of events which should properly have led to the Applicant being appointed to the position she was sought out for. Noting that the decision not to appoint the Applicant would probably not be rescinded, the Tribunal, in the alternative, awarded her 18 months¡¯ net base salary...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant¡¯s contract should not be renewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party¡¯s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...
The Tribunal found, on receivability, that this amounts to an appealable administrative decision, insofar as it had direct effects on the Applicant¡¯s rights, and on the merits, that filling a vacancy by laterally transferring a staff member holding the same grade and within the department of the vacant post, without undergoing a full-fledged selection procedure under the staff selection system, does not per se violate the applicable legal framework. Direct legal effects: A decision to fill a given vacancy through a lateral movement has direct legal effects on the rights of potential candidates...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.
