Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...

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 Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage.

For the Applicant to claim pecuniary damages arising from his being transferred, or the reprimand being withdrawn whilst he was subjected to the JDC process, he must establish that he suffered actual economic harm. The Applicant could, for instance, have done so by identifying a specific promotion which he missed out on. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has provided limited evidence of his exclusion from consideration for other posts. The Tribunal finds that being investigated for misconduct and having been issued with an administrative reprimand is more than likely to have negatively...

Decision affecting the applicant¡¯s rights: Since staff members have the right to apply to other positions under the Staff Regulations and Rules, they are entitled to contest a non-selection decision and a fortiori a decision imposing an additional condition for appointment after having been selected. Such a decision does affect the staff member¡¯s rights and is thus open to appeal.Lack of legal basis for the condition to renounce to permanent resident status: The General Assembly never endorsed the recommendations to approve the establishment of the condition that staff members must relinquish...

The Tribunal found that the PCO¡¯s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define ¡°personal data¡±, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...

The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent¡¯s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion.The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that there were candidates who had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process. The Tribunal further noted that although mistakes occurred, which were then corrected and...