Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Administration had erred in giving to the Applicant an appointment whose expiration date went well beyond his retirement age but that it duly rectified this error by separating him from service. It also found that the Applicant had been sufficiently compensated by the Respondent. Nature of contractual relationship: The contracts by which the Organization employs staff members are not regular contracts, given the particular relationship established between staff members and the Organization, and they are for the most part governed by the Staff Regulations and Rules...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

The Tribunal, noting that the Applicant had failed to comply with the time limit set out in former staff rule 111.2(a), focused solely on whether there were ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s mere assertion that she was unable to follow-up and was incapable of submitting a reasoned appeal as a result of psychological and professional stress was inadequate to warrant a waiver of the time limits. Based on the limited submissions of the Applicant, the Tribunal was unable to establish any causal relation between her state of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the contested decision was superseded by the 31 March 2011 decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment for another six months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was thus rendered moot and decided to close the case.

To give full effect to the requirements of staff rule 110(4) which embodies the elements of fair process in disciplinary investigations, the preliminary investigation undertaken pursuant to the AI and any related IOM/ FOMs should be treated as strictly preliminary. The disciplinary part of the process, including the interview of the alleged offender should only occur once all the preliminary evidence has been made available to the staff member and the specific allegations against him or her have been finalised. If there is to be an interview it should properly be the last step in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

The Tribunal finds that the facts on which the disciplinary measures are based were established. Judicial review of disciplinary sanctions (1): As the Applicant challenges the disciplinary measures on the sole ground that he did not commit the purported actions, there are no grounds for the Tribunal, once it has found that the facts are established, to consider whether these facts legally amount to misconduct and whether the sanctions imposed on the Applicant were proportionate. Judicial review of disciplinary sanctions (2): The circumstance that an investigation into misconduct might have...

The initial decision not to confirm the Applicant to the post was taken by an unidentified person whereas only the High Commissioner has the authority to take decisions on promotions. This decision must therefore be rescinded by the Tribunal. A second decision not to confirm her to the post was taken by the High Commissioner following a recourse submitted by the Applicant to the APPB and the Tribunal must examine the legality of this decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Representative, who decided not to recommend the Applicant¡¯s confirmation to the post, took this decision without informing her beforehand and...

The Tribunal found that there could not be an absolute and general rule that the failure to give reasons amounts to an unlawful exercise of the discretion not to renew. Nor should there be a rule that reasons should never be given. Having found that the decision was not prima facie illegal, the requirements provided for in Article 13 of the Rules of Procedure to grant suspension of action were not met.Outcome: the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant¡¯s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...