Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that both the decision to remove the applicant from her post and the decision to place her on SLWFP constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion pursuant to former staff regulation 1.2 (c) and former staff rule 105.2 (a), respectively. However, the Tribunal also considered that keeping the applicant on SLWFP for four years and four months breached staff rule 105.2 (a), as it did not serve the interests of the Organization. The Tribunal further found that this breach had caused the applicant moral injury for which she should be compensated. Disguised...

It was not disputed that the Applicant borrowed money from a Sales Manager working in a company doing business with MONUC. In the light of the applicable law and in particular the financial and procurement rules, the Tribunal found that misconduct had been properly established. Nonetheless, the Tribunal found a certain number of mitigating factors such as the fact that he repaid the loan in full and that it was a ¡°one-off decision¡±. Therefore, the Tribunal took the view that the sanction was not proportionate.

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants¡¯ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant¡¯s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant¡¯s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated when the...

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his short-term contract -he did not have a signed contract- but because of a disciplinary measure following the findings of the selection panel. The separation of the applicant was unlawful in two respects: the decision was made without proper delegated authority (the authority to terminate a short-term appointment as a result of disciplinary measures has not been delegated by the Secretary-General in accordance with ST/AI/234/Rev.1) and the process was in violation of the rules governing separation as a disciplinary measure, including...

The applicant was not separated because of an organisational necessity neither because of the expiry of his short-term contract -he did not have a signed contract. He was separated because of a disciplinary measure following the findings of the selection panel. The separation of the applicant was unlawful for two reasons: the decision was made without proper delegated authority (the authority to terminate a short-term appointment as a result of disciplinary measures has not been delegated by the Secretary-General in accordance with ST/AI/234/Rev.1) and the process was in violation of the rules...

The respondent submitted documentary evidence showing that the applicant¡¯s post had been created, and the applicant recruited, specifically for the purpose of prosecuting the above-mentioned top Serbian leader. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to abolish the applicant¡¯s post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment had been taken in view of the necessities of service and constituted a proper exercise of the respondent¡¯s discretionary authority. Since it was established that the necessities of service justified the termination of the applicant¡¯s appointment, it was not...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed to comply with the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In...

¡°[...]if the respondent fails to follow proper procedures, and even if the decision is subsequently withdrawn, the applicant may be entitled to compensation, for the violation of his due process rights at the time the decision in question was taken. Therefore, the question of compensation must be dealt with separately from the fact that the contested decision was withdrawn.¡± ¡°The Administration¡¯s failure to pursue one of the options under Section 9 of ST/AI/371, to put the case on hold and to keep the applicant, who had been charged with misconduct, in a limbo and to issue the Note for File...

The Tribunal found that the evidence adduced by the respondent did not sufficiently support the charge that the applicant had not paid for three tickets issued to him by MCM and that, accordingly, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt in respect of this charge. About the applicant¡¯s unauthorized absences from the mission area, the Tribunal held that, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, a dismissal was disproportionate to the offence and that a written censure would be an appropriate measure. The Tribunal found that the applicant¡¯s due process rights had...