Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae. Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant¡¯s previous contractual...

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...