Ģ��ƵDT/2013/035

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant��s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, Ģ��ƵON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant��s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, Ģ��ƵON/DSS�� actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The Chief, Ģ��ƵON/DSS abused and exceeded his authority by not restoring the Applicant��s access to Lotus Notes after the investigations were completed and no further action was taken on the matter.The Chief, Ģ��ƵON/DSS abused his authority by revoking the Applicant��s firearm licence without providing reasons for his decision. The Chief, Ģ��ƵON/DSS, the Assistant Chief of Security Ģ��ƵON and the Human Resources Officer, Ģ��ƵON abused their authority by usurping the powers of the Medical Director and declaring the Applicant mentally unstable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In case No. Ģ��ƵDT/NBI/2011/020, the Applicant contested the administrative decisions not to select him for the following posts: Security Lieutenant under Vacancy Announcement Number 10-SEC-Ģ��ƵON-424103-R-NAIROBI dated 23 March 2010 and Security Lieutenant under Vacancy Announcement Number 10-SEC-Ģ��ƵON- 424422-R-NAIROBI dated 19 April 2010. In case No. Ģ��ƵDT/NBI/2011/057, he challenged a decision by Ģ��ƵON��s Chief, Safety and Security Section to suspend his use of the Organization��s Lotus Notes e-mail account.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Luvai

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry