Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings in the form of submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had decided previously that the MICT was a Secretariat entity and was thus precluded from holding to the contrary. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not eligible for a continuing appointment for three reasons: (1) he did not work for the Secretariat; (2) the MICT had no authority to grant a continuing appointment; and (3) he was not in active service in the Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment throughout the period of consideration. On consideration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer¡¯s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

The Tribunal found the first application receivable because a response to the Applicant¡¯s request for implementation of the award of the continuing appointment of which he was notified by Inspira on 3 November 2016 was only made by the MICT on 31 May 2017. The Applicant was still within the prescribed time limits of 60 days under staff rule 11.3(c) when he sought management evaluation on 11 July. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant transferred from DPKO, which is part of the Secretariat, to the MICT. Before the said transfer, the Applicant had been invited by OHRM to...

By not seeking the Medical Director¡¯s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant¡¯s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been selected by a Secretariat review body, which is a requirement under sec 2.1 of ST/SGB/2011/9. The Tribunal held that this was rational and consistent with General Assembly resolution 65/247 that for continuing appointments with the Secretariat, the requisite review be done by a Secretarit review body rather than other specialized review bodies. This condition was not satisfied in the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the impugned decision not to grant the Applicant the continuing appointment was correct. The application was thus dismissed.

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis¡± (see Manco 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...