Noting that both the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had repeatedly emphasized the need to observe time limits, the Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred, without ruling on the admissibility ratione personae of it.
ST/IC/2006/60, the legality of which has not been contested by the Applicant, is clear as far as the rates for relocation grant are concerned. It stipulates on the one hand that for single staff members ¡°separating from service following appointments or assignments of one year or more¡±, the applicable rate is USD10,000, and on the other hand that ¡°for assignments of less than one year¡± the rate is USD1,200. It is clear that the Applicant, who was assigned to Geneva for six months only because he decided to resign, falls within the latter category. The Administration could thus rely on this...
The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...
The Tribunal cannot review the Alleged Harassment complaint as management evaluation is a prerequisite to an application before the Tribunal¡ªsee Planas 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-049 and Syed 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-061. The Tribunal does not have the power to suspend or waive time limits¡ªsee Costa 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036. In this case there was no request for, or grant of an extension by the Secretary General. Therefore, regardless of whether there were attempts at informal resolution (or, indeed any other circumstance or factor), the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the First Decision is out of time as it was filed more than 60 days after...
The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal¡¯s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion¡ªthat is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties¡ªwhether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...
The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...
The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.
The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.
The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.
The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.
