Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the Applicant¡¯s initial complaint was meeting all the requirements contained in sec. 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It noted that the decision not to initiate a formal fact-finding investigation was made only six months after the complaint had been lodged hence it did not meet the requirement of ¡®promptness¡¯ contained in sec. 5.3 and sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the course of action chosen by the ASG/OHRM, which consisted in asking first the alleged offender for his views, had no legal basis in ST/SGB/2008/5. Having considered the definition of the...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc¡¯ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...

Management Evaluation - It was held that the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the Tribunal operate on different deadlines and receivability thresholds and that the Tribunal cannot be bound by the findings of the MEU regarding the receivability of a case. Receivability - The Tribunal found that in this case, the entire 26 month period during which the Applicant was estranged from the Organization formed part of the same continuum punctuated by different contradicting decisions all of which centered on the singular issue of abuse of authority. Given the continuous nature of the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal noted that for an application to be receivable, the decision that is being challenged has to be an ¡°administrative decision¡± under the provisions of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the present case, the abolition of the post at stake had not yet been formally approved by the United Nations General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the mere proposal to abolish a post does not constitute an ¡°administrative decision¡±, because it does not produce ¡°direct legal consequences¡±. Therefore, and since the Applicant did not challenge an administrative decision, the Tribunal decided that her...

The Respondent objected to the receivability of the application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the case receivable and directed the parties to attempt informal resolution of the matter.

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS to WHO and back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, and her separation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

The Applicant was not qualified to address Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.