The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The 蘑菇视频DT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.
The 蘑菇视频DT found that the Applicant’s claims with regard to the issue of lien and loan were without merit. With respect to the issue of placement on special leave without pay, the 蘑菇视频DT found that the Applicant should have been placed on sick leave on half salary and half annual leave for a period of up to three months. The 蘑菇视频DT ordered the Respondent to make appropriate adjustments, including any related payments and adjustments to benefits and entitlements, to reflect the placement of the Applicant on three months of sick leave on half pay combined with half-day of annual leave commencing 22...
Judicial review in disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, where the facts are established and undisputed, the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts in question constitute misconduct and whether the sanction imposed is proportionate to the misconduct. In this regard, the Tribunal may not intervene in the exercise of the Secretary-General’s discretionary authority, except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness.
Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this SOA in light of the fact that the Applicant had received a response to his request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Thus, the contested administrative decision was no longer the subject of an ongoing management evaluation as required under art. 2 of the Statute.
The 蘑菇视频DT found that the contested decision was based on improperly imposed conditions not stipulated under staff rule 4.18 and thus lacked proper legal basis. Further, it was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the contested decision was unlawful. The 蘑菇视频DT found that, had the discretion been properly exercised on the stipulated conditions, the Applicant would have been reinstated in service and shall be treated as such. The 蘑菇视频DT ordered rescission of the contested decision. The 蘑菇视频DT ordered that the Applicant be deemed as reinstated in service and that proper adjustments be made...
The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov 蘑菇视频DT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent’s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov 蘑菇视频DT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...
Confirmative decisions: These decisions do not re-open time limits for formal contestation.
The Tribunal found that the PCO’s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define “personal data”, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the 蘑菇视频DT and 蘑菇视频AT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...
The 蘑菇视频DT found that the Respondent had failed to fully comply with his obligations under ST/SGB/2008/5 with respect to the Applicant’s complaints and that the Respondent had violated the Applicant’s rights by not promptly providing her with a summary of findings and conclusions and by not investigating allegations of misconduct that impacted on her. Action to be taken under sec 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5: Depending on the circumstances of the case, section 5.14 may have two elements that must be satisfied by the Organization. The first component of section 5.14 is the review and assessment of the...
