Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had made the Applicant applying and being selected to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF vacant post a condition for his return. The Tribunal found that by imposing such a condition to the Applicant¡¯s return, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF violated the terms of his secondment, under which the Applicant retained ¡°rights to employment¡± in the releasing organization (i.e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF). Compensation in lieu of rescission: although the chain of events lead to ending the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF, this was not the direct consequence of the contested decision, i.e., conditioning the Applicant¡¯s return to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF service after...

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had discharged the burden of proof in showing that her separation from the Organization was motivated by extraneous factors and improper motives. Extraneous factors ¨C There was increased animosity between the Applicant and her various supervisors both in Bor and later when she was transferred to Wau. Consequently, the Tribunal found that bias against the Applicant existed on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS management. Due Process/ Procedural flaw ¨C The responsible officials at the mission all defied the procedures provided for by ST/AI/371 for dealing with reports of...

She was charged with having ¡°1. Engaged in the unlawful use of government-issued customs passbooks ¡­ of two international staff members to purchase duty-free items; 2. Failed to transfer the ownership of, and pay the government tax for, a duty-free car [she] purchased from an international staff member, and [having driven it] with diplomatic license plates for at least three years; 3. Falsified the signature of ¡­ the former Deputy Representative, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Office, Bangladesh, on a Bill of Sale on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR letterhead dated 6 June 2010; and 4. Acted improperly when, on six occasions, [she] purchased...

The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...

The Applicant did not comply with the requirement of staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation within the period of 60 days from the date of notification of the decision. The deadline expired on 12 January 2014, but she requested management evaluation on 12 February 2014.

The fact-finding panel established that the allegations were well founded and the conduct in question amounted to possible misconduct. In the circumstances, the mandatory language of section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 required a referral to the ASG/OHRM for disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures. Failure to make such a referral on the part of the Head of Mission was an error of procedure which denied the Applicant his contractual right to be afforded the benefit and protection against prohibited conduct in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. The Administration...

Taking into consideration the Respondent¡¯s response that the internal processes had not yet reached finality, the Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter until such time as all applicable and relevant procedures had been concluded. Consequently, the application was deemed premature and dismissed as irreceivable.