Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The best interests of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR were clearly not served by the removal of the Applicant. It is unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe that some members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior management sought to hide behind the veil of acting in the Organization¡¯s best interests to act in their own self-interest. The Tribunal therefore found on that score that the Respondent¡¯s explanation were a mere afterthought which was only spun to defend an action that was clearly lacking in due process and constituted an unfair and highhanded removal of the Applicant and abuse of official discretion. The Tribunal was not in any doubt that the removal of...

The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that its authority to suspend or waive the time limits set forth in art. 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute did not extend to deadlines for management evaluation. These deadlines cannot be waived notwithstanding whether the failing of the deadline would have been occasioned by confusing information received from the Administration. As provided in staff rule 11.2(c), the deadline for requesting management evaluation may only be extended by the Secretary-General pending efforts for informal resolution conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, under conditions specified...

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. As the conditions for reimbursement and the extent of the coverage are detailed in the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±) Rules, the Tribunal¡¯s role essentially consisted in examining whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR committed any error, in law or in fact, in the interpretation or the application of these rules.; The Tribunal identified the following issues:; Was the Applicant entitled to the benefit of the stop-loss provision?; The Tribunal...

It was not disputed that the procedural flaws identified by Judgment Rodriguez-Viquez Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/030 in respect of the Second Round of the 2013 Promotions Session for candidates for promotion to the P-5 level also vitiated the consideration of candidates to the D-1 level and thus impacted on the Applicant¡¯s chances to be promoted. The Tribunal noted that it was difficult to ascertain the chances that the Applicant had to be promoted but it was uncontested that they were significant. The Tribunal thus rescinded the contested decision. The Tribunal referred to Rodriguez-Viquez whereby the...

The Applicant¡¯s allegations of abuse of power arose from an understandable and reasonable suspicion but are not substantiated by the evidence heard by the Tribunal.; The re-advertisement of the contested position including a description of the operational context does not constitute a procedural flaw and the explanations provided are sufficient to conclude that it was not prompted by an ulterior motive.; The Applicant has not demonstrated that he was subjected to a detriment by any procedural or substantive error in respect of the first advertised JO. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant, an individual contractor, did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants under art. 3.1 of its Statute. Noting that individual contractors are not staff members, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing and, consequently, that the application was not receivable ratione personae.

The parties were at odds as to the procedure for establishing a medical board under art. 17 of Appendix D. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the ABCC failed to adhere to art. 17(b) of former Appendix D because it failed to establish a medical board to consider and report on the medical aspects of his claim. The Respondent submitted that the onus was on the Applicant to request the establishment of a medical board and to nominate a medical practitioner to represent him on the medical board. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s submission that the Applicant was obliged to request a medical board...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner¡¯s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant¡¯s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not received the fullest regard due to him as an internal candidate. The Tribunal found it appropriate in this case to award USD5,000 as compensation for the loss of opportunity and USD4,000 for moral damages. Related

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...