The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant’s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.
The instruments invoked by the Applicant did not lend support to the contention about illegality of the abolition of his post occasioned by the fact that a post of a similar functionality would have been subsequently created within ECA. No violation of procedures envisaged in these instruments has been shown. Specifically, neither of these instruments obligated ES/ECA to carry out redeployment or classification of existing Regional Advisor posts in priority over creation of new posts at ECA. The Tribunal found no abuse, arbitrariness or unfairness in the abolition of the Applicant’s post...
The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s claim that he was underpaid between July 2004 and 31 May 2005, was not receivable. The Tribunal was satisfied that in the period in relation to which the Applicant alleged underpayments by the 蘑菇视频FPA Administration, the Applicant was not a staff member appointed by the Secretary-General. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to persons who are staff members or former staff members of the Organization. Therefore, the Applicant had no locus standi regarding the claims derived from another status, but not a staff member. With regard to the non-renewal...
The Tribunal held that MONUSCO’s 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum unambiguously informed the Applicant of the mission’s decision to end his appointment, which at this point was a continuing appointment, by separating him from service on 24 October 2014. The Tribunal held that the 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum was an administrative decision because it had a direct and adverse impact on the Applicant’s contractual status and had direct legal consequences for him. The Tribunal concluded that the FPD/DFS response of 31 October 2016 was a reiteration of the 17 October 2014 decision...
The impugned decision of 21 April 2015 clearly: a) emanated from the Administration and b) produced direct legal consequences for the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s appointment. As such, the decision was capable of being subject to management evaluation as well as capable of being reviewed by the 蘑菇视频DT. The Applicant had until 90 days from 8 June 2015 to file an application before 蘑菇视频DT. The Applicant did not do so until 1 March 2016. The application is, therefore, late by almost six months. The Applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would warrant waiving the time...
Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, “the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case” (see Sanwidi 2013-蘑菇视频AT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-蘑菇视频AT-680, para. 13): “… Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...
Noting that the Applicant had conceded that his application was filed after the time limit set out in art. 8.1(d)(i)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable rationae temporis because the Applicant failed to comply with the 90-day filing deadline set out in art. 8.1(d) of the 蘑菇视频DT Statute. The Tribunal then deliberated on the Applicant’s assertion that his application is receivable because the interpretation of art. 8.1(d)(i)(b) is unfair to staff members as it favours an administration that has failed to address management evaluation requests in violation of staff...
Functus Officio: A final decision cannot be reopened, and once the duties and functions of an office are fully discharged, there is no legal competence for reconsideration of the decision by that office. The Dispute Tribunal ceased to have any jurisdiction over the Applicant’s case once the initial judgment was rendered and without the case being remanded by the Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute Tribunal cannot examine the application any further.
Functus Officio: A final decision cannot be reopened, and once the duties and functions of an office are fully discharged, there is no legal competence for reconsideration of the decision by that office. The Dispute Tribunal ceased to have any jurisdiction over the Applicant’s case once the initial judgment was rendered and without the case being remanded by the Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute Tribunal cannot examine the application any further.
Discretion of investigators: Duly authorised investigators have a discretion to determine the information that they deem relevant to gather and probe further. However, such discretion is not unfettered. Investigations must be conducted in a fair, balanced and impartial manner.
Admissibility and value of evidence: Circumstantial evidence, as well as hearsay, are admissible in the Organization’s internal justice system. However, their probative value is more limited than that of direct evidence. Mere statements of witnesses holding that the Applicant had engaged in other instances in behavior...
