Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent¡¯s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal limited to the claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered inadequate compensation for the losses he sustained as a result of various acts and omissions on the part of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took due regard for the arguments the Appellant brought in his appeal and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, having regarded the parameters of what it could compensate the Appellant for, made adequate provisions for the Appellant¡¯s economic and social losses in its overall award to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ international legal instruments on human rights. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant¡¯s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...

While the Respondent submits that the recognized heads of damage are: actual pecuniary loss; damages for procedural error and moral damages, the Tribunal does not consider this list to be exhaustive. The Tribunal cannot conclude that if proper procedures had been followed, the Applicant would have been selected for the subject post. Nonetheless, it considers that the Applicant¡¯s prospect for selection was very high due to the fact that he was the only candidate deemed suitable for the post by the Advisory Selection Panel. Thus, the contested decision impacts substantially on the Applicant¡¯s...

Applicants have a duty to pursue their causes of action promptly. Delay can cause considerable uncertainty and inconvenience not only for the Respondent but for third parties as well. The Applicant¡¯s fears of retaliation due to the non-existence of administrative machinery to protect him at the material times are not justified. This Application is not receivable as it was filed more than the three years stipulated under Article 8(4) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. In addition, the facts in this case would not have...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action ¨C urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...