Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant¡¯s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent¡¯s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member¡¯s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent¡¯s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent¡¯s failure to disclose the reasons to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months¡¯ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs¡¯ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

The Tribunal found that the application was irreceivable as time-barred; it was also without merit because the alleged conflict of interest was not deemed to exist. Independent status: Bodies endowed with an independent status are integrated in the structure of the Organization and, whilst they may not receive instructions from their chain of command in performing the tasks entrusted to them, they are not entirely detached from the Secretary-General¡¯s authority. Administrative decisions: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the legality of acts other than administrative decisions. Redress...

The Tribunal cannot review the Alleged Harassment complaint as management evaluation is a prerequisite to an application before the Tribunal¡ªsee Planas 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-049 and Syed 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-061. The Tribunal does not have the power to suspend or waive time limits¡ªsee Costa 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036. In this case there was no request for, or grant of an extension by the Secretary General. Therefore, regardless of whether there were attempts at informal resolution (or, indeed any other circumstance or factor), the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the First Decision is out of time as it was filed more than 60 days after...

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Noting that both the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had repeatedly emphasized the need to observe time limits, the Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred, without ruling on the admissibility ratione personae of it.

Applicant¡¯s request for a swap of posts and for priority consideration: The Tribunal¡¯s Statute does not authorize it to issue such orders to the Administration. Applicant¡¯s request for an internal review of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDSS: The Tribunal¡¯s mandate is to enforce the individual rights of applicants; it does not behove the Tribunal to oblige the Administration to remedy problems it may identify in the functioning of the Organization. Applicant¡¯s request for determination of individual responsibilities: Assuming the Applicant intended to rely on article 10.8 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, such article allows the...

The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...

The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal¡¯s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion¡ªthat is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties¡ªwhether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...