Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.

The Applicant made a range of vague references to different circumstances surrounding the question of the closing of her complaint regarding harassment and abuse of authority, but failed to clearly define any other contested administrative decisions. The Tribunal therefore finds that the only issue properly before it as that concerning the decision of the Director to dismiss the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding harassment and abuse of authority in accepting the findings of the OIA.

The Tribunal held that the delay by the Respondent without reason was a ¡®manifest abuse of the proceedings¡¯ which entitled the Applicant to an award of costs. In light of said delays by the Respondent the Tribunal awarded the Applicant interest from the date of wrongful separation until the payment of compensation, and for the moral damages award, interest from the date of award by the JAB. The Tribunal held that as there is no practical difference between the terms ¡®net¡¯ and ¡®net base¡¯ pay, the Applicant is not entitled to the additional payments which amount to the ¡®gross¡¯ sum of his salary...

Impartiality of a judge is determined by two tests, subjective and objective. (Campos). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the request for recusal was based on mere fact and no such conflict of interest or professional relationship existed between the honourable Judge and the two Thai nationals named.

A judgment must be uncertain or ambiguous to be open to interpretation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that paragraph 19 of the judgment was an obiter observation by the Tribunal and did not have a bearing on the reasoning or outcome of the final judgment. The Tribunal found that paragraph 19 was neither uncertain nor ambiguous. The Tribunal held that Article 12.3 must not be used to re-open proceedings, and this is what the Applicant had attempted to do.

The fact that the attempt to defraud the medical claims system was not successful did not diminish the Applicant¡¯s liability in having made a false claim, as such; his actions destroyed the faith of the Organization in the Applicant which was necessary for continuing employment relationship. Proportionality: Although comparison between other similar cases can be referred to, they should be treated with caution as every case turns on its own facts. In determining whether to lessen the imposed sanction, the Tribunal will consider mitigating circumstance that had not been previously considered....

The practice of placing reliance upon recordings in initial fact finding exercises and interview notes of appointed investigators in an effort to establish gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal before the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and cannot establish the facts in issue. An investigator must be committed to ascertaining the facts of the case through relevant inquiry involving the questioning of witnesses, forensic evidence where necessary and identification and collection of relevant documentary evidence. The investigator¡¯s findings should be based on substantiated facts and...

Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.

Administration¡¯s withdrawal of unlawful individual administrative decisions which created rights: According to the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s case law, a decision creating rights cannot in principle be withdrawn by the Administration. However, staff rule 11.2 which governs the management evaluation process constitutes an exception to this principle. Thus, under this provision, the Administration is obliged to withdraw an administrative decision that is unlawful where such decision is challenged by a staff member. It is not appropriate to distinguish between the situation where the Administration finds...