Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 2 first confers the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to determine, in any application filed by an individual before it, whether the contested decision is an ¡°administrative decision¡± and whether it was made in compliance with or contrary to an individual¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. In other words, it is for the Tribunal to determine, inter alia, in any given case, whether a contested decision qualifies as an ¡°administrative decision¡± or not. As a matter of law and practice, a ¡°friend-of-court¡± brief is a legal position on the issues for determination before the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations, but rather a member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ police force (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPOL), which was an international law enforcement entity separately administered outside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretariat. The Tribunal therefore, held that in view of the established law, articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal was not competent to entertain it. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as non-receivable.

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that no international labour standards or the United Nation¡¯s Charter were breached in the process of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the Harmonization of Conditions of Service for Internationally-Recruited Staff in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Application is dismissed in its entirety Contract of employment - Article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute defines the contract of employment, as including: all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged...

The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant¡¯s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.

Harassment: The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s actions in sending caustic emails and nude photographs of Ms. M, a MONUC staff member he had dated, to other United Nations staff members at their official United Nations email addresses and to their private email addresses constituted harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5 in that the emails sought to belittle, humiliate and embarrass Ms. M and to compromise her reputation in a professional context. Proportionality of the sancton: The Tribunal held that the sanction was proportionate due to the fact that the Applicant¡¯s conduct on...

All the unresolved questions, the established facts and the Applicant¡¯s failure to bring evidence in order to convince the Tribunal of the alleged extortion scheme against him support an inference that the Applicant had likely engaged in a sexual relationship with V01, a minor. Given all the surrounding circumstances of the charge, investigations and his own actions and explanations, the Applicant has not sufficiently discharged the burden upon him. The wording in paragraphs 3.2 (a) and (b) of ST/SGB/2003/13 is clear. Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct...

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal held that in matters relating to Appendix D of the Staff Rules it has jurisdiction to determine: (i) whether the ABCC correctly followed the procedure applicable to medical claims; (ii) whether it properly directed its mind to the relevant issues; and (iii) whether the evidence on which it based its determination was adequate or flawed. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to make any such assessment and to substitute its own evaluation for the one reached by an expert body like the ABCC. Request for reconsideration: The Tribunal found that...

The Tribunal found that art. 17 does not refer to an evaluation by a medical practitioner selected by the Administration in cases of requests for reconsideration and that the Administration failed to follow the correct procedure when it did not convene a medical board. It further noted that the Administration could not, under art. 17, use an independent medical evaluation by a practitioner established in the framework of the initial assessment of a disability benefit under the Pension Fund Regulations. The Tribunal further stressed that the independent medical evaluation failed to address the...