Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In the present judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, in light of the circumstances of this case, the three months¡¯ net base salary paid to the Applicant for the lack of due process on the recommendation of the JAB report was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the procedural unfairness to be so grave that it warranted additional compensation in the amount of USD15,000 for the breach of the Applicant¡¯s procedural rights. With respect to compensation for actual economic loss, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Respondent shall compensate the Applicant for the actual economic loss incurred by her and that the actual economic loss...

The Secretary-General¡¯s decision to allow the applicants to resubmit their cases to the CAC within 90 days was reasonable and fair. The CAC is the legitimate and appropriate body to hear the applicants¡¯ request for a review of a reclassification decision. In view of the JAB¡¯s report, the lack of information provided during the period in question and the respondent¡¯s silence in explaining the delays in the period from 2000-04, the Tribunal finds that compensation for the excessive delay in responding to the original request for reclassification is warranted, as is compensation for the breach of...

The Tribunal is not seized of an intelligible application. The applicant has failed to identify the impugned administrative decision or decisions for which he is seeking relief. He has also failed to identify any steps taken by him to seek administrative review of the impugned administrative decisions. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (1) (a) and Article 8(1) of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the equivalent provisions of the Statute of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal to consider the application. Second, the applicant has failed to comply with two orders of the...

The applicant (but not his counsel) received a copy of the letter on 1 December 2008 and therefore had until 2 March 2009 to file his application. However, his application was dated 30 June 2009, or 120 days past the deadline, and it was received by the former Administrative Tribunal only on 6 July 2009. The respondent submitted as a preliminary matter that the application was time-barred. The applicant contended that his counsel had not been notified of the decision by the Administration and therefore counsel was unable to file a timeous appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant was informed of...

The Respondent rested his case on the evidence of a witness on whom anonymity was conferred during the investigation and who was not called at the hearing. From the statements made by the witness during the investigation the Tribunal found that his/her testimony was fraught with irregularities and inconsistencies and could not be acted upon. The Tribunal also found that failure to call the witness for cross examination was a breach of the due process requirement. The Tribunal also held that when anonymity is conferred on a witness during the investigation, the Tribunal is not bound by this and...

Noting the agreement between the Parties, and the Applicant¡¯s notice of withdrawal, the Tribunal ordered that the matter be dismissed.

A decision which has not been the subject of a request for a management evaluation cannot be contested before the Tribunal. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. The High Commissioner was not bound to follow the APPB recommendations. He was able to legally...

The time for requesting a management evaluation in this case is specified in Staff Rule 111.2(c). This rule provides that a request for management evaluation should not be receivable by the Secretary-General unless it was sent within 60 days of notification of the contested administrative decision. The Secretary-General is able to extend this time limit pending efforts for informal resolution by the office of the Ombudsman. In this case there is no evidence that the parties submitted the matter to the office of the Ombudsman for mediation within the deadlines for filing a management evaluation...

The Deputy High Commissioner, who has received a delegation from the High Commissioner, is legally competent to carry out the management evaluation of a decision taken by the latter. The legality of a decision must be assessed as at the date when it was taken, and not in light of subsequent circumstances. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of facts in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that...