Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Placing the Applicant on SLWFP. The Tribunal agrees with and adopts the Kamunyi reasoning that former staff rule 105.2 did not permit placing a staff member on SLWFP where an investigation was being made into possible wrong-doing by that staff member. The formal nature of the OIOS/PTF investigation. A preliminary investigation under ST/AI/371, sec. 2, is differentiated from a formal investigation under ST/AI/371, sec. 6, as occupying different places within the overall structure of ST/AI/371. For an investigation to be regarded as merely preliminary in nature, some ¡°reason to believe¡± must...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were observed by the Organization in its handling of the complaint and rejected the application in its entirety. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Organization in handling the complaint, both individually and in aggregate, met the requirements of due process.

No expectancy of renewal. Fixed-term contracts, such as the Applicant¡¯s in the present case, do not carry an expectancy of renewal, but a decision not to renew a contract may not be tainted by ulterior motives or extraneous considerations and reasons must be properly be supported by facts. Exception. While exceptions to the staff rules may be made, an exception would not be justified in the Applicant¡¯s case, because the Post that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was budgeted against had been filled by another staff member on a regular contract. Accordingly, with the Post no longer being vacant, the...

Presumption of regularity. There is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed, but this presumption is rebuttable. If the Respondent is able to even minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given a full and fair consideration, which he did not in the present case, then the presumption of law stands satisfied. Once a minimal showing has been made, the burden of proof thereafter shift to the Applicant, who need to show through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Cancelling the first selection exercise and reissuing a...

The case was not time-barred. As in Mezoui: (1) the Applicant had requested from the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal an extension of time to file her application; and (2) such extension was granted with a time limit of 30 June 2009 (the last day of the functioning of the Administrative Tribunal). The following additional factors were also taken into account: the Applicant¡¯s personal circumstances; the significant delays of the JAB proceedings compared to the relatively short delay on the part of the Applicant; and the Applicant¡¯s difficulties in finding out where to file the...

The e-PAS report for 2007-2008. The Applicant¡¯s behaviour was not appropriate or cooperative, placing her first reporting officer in a difficult position. Nevertheless, under ST/AI/2002/3, it is the duty of the first reporting officer, as well as the head of department and managers with supervisory authority, to make sure that the staff member¡¯s individual work plan is completed on time, and the Organization remains ultimately responsible for the implementation of the e-PAS system. The e-PAS report for 2008-2009. A one-year delay in signing-off on an e-PAS report is clearly improper under sec...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Panel on Discrimination and other Grievances, which was the body mandated to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint, failed to act expeditiously in bringing the Applicant¡¯s case to conclusion, finish its investigation, and issue its final report, as required by ST/AI/308/Rev.1. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization failed to properly address the Applicant¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination and was thus in breach of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not prove that any actual economic loss warranting compensation was caused to him...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of irreparable damage and particular urgency. The application for suspension of action was rejected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to provide any explanation to the Tribunal as to the reasons for filing the present application 25 calendar days after the email of 28 October 2011 and nine working days before the examination. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the urgency in the present matter was created by the Applicant, who did not act timeously in filing the present application with sufficient urgency.

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/168, by which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.