Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant¡¯s reassignment to ONUCI was frustrated by the force majeure, the outbreak of violence in C?te d¡¯Ivoire and this event was beyond the control of the Administration. There were no exceptional circumstances that would have justified placing the Applicant on special leave with full pay between 1 July 2011 and 6 December 2011.The Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWOP upon the expiry of his provisional reassignment to ONUCI. The Applicant is not entitled to any relief for the delay in receiving certain written tests as a result of the disconnection of his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ webmail address. However...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant¡¯s case rests firmly at her own door.

The Applicant¡¯s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant¡¯s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.

Testimony of anonymous witnesses: The Tribunal held that the testimony of witnesses whom the Applicant has not had the opportunity to confront in proceedings is not inadmissible per se. However, a decision adverse to a staff member in a disciplinary case may not be based solely on this. There must be some independent evidence that can confirm the anonymous testimony, especially where the staff member has not had a chance to confront the witnesses and therefore challenge any incriminating evidence they have given against the staff member. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of due...

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Provision of adverse material to the Applicant: The Tribunal noted that the ABCC had information before it that was adverse to the Applicant¡¯s claim when it reached its recommended decision but did not disclose to the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant should have been given the opportunity to see and comment on the adverse material. In failing to afford him this basic right the ABCC violated the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Service incurred injury: The Tribunal concluded that it was not within the competence of the MSD medical advisor to provide...

Receivability: The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s subsequent correspondence with the ONUCI Human Resources Office after he was notified of the decision did not constitute a new or discrete decision. He failed to meet the 60 day deadline set out in staff rule 11.2(c) for management evaluation. Consequently, his Application is not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

Following careful review of the facts as they appear in the pleadings, and the accompanying documentary evidence, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the presumption of regularity in the selection process has been or should be rebutted. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent acted improperly in selecting the recommended candidate, or that he was motivated by any extraneous factors in not selecting the Applicant.; The Applicant was given full and fair consideration and the selection decision was proper and lawful.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had not met the evidentiary burden of showing that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his appointment and that conversely, the evidence showed that, in accordance with its Transition Plan, the Mission had no intention of maintaining the Applicant¡¯s post and proceeded with the downsizing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions did not require Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOCI to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment, neither did it alter Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOCI¡¯s obligation to implement the phased drawdown in accordance...