Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The various justifications given by the Administration suffered from inconsistencies and inaccuracies and not fully supported by the facts. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the decision was ill-motivated as alleged. The decision is unlawful. Reinstatement is not possible because the relevant office is closed. The Applicant did not prove that the harm was directly caused by the contested decision and therefore rejects his claim for moral damages.

As the Applicant had effectively withdrawn his request for management evaluation, the application was not receivable ratione materiae under staff 11.2(a). Related

Rescission of the contested non-renewal decision In its Judgment Quatrini Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/043, the Tribunal found that the Organization failed to justify the non-renewal of the contract of the Applicant and that the decision to separate him from service was therefore flawed. The Tribunal further held, comparing the P-5 level position formerly encumbered by the Applicant with the one advertised in the Global Mechanism, that the two positions are essentially the same, the Tribunal thus drew the inference that the position still exists. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the most...

The Tribunal¡¯s role is not to substitute its decision for that of the Administration when it comes to the evaluation of job candidates. All that is required from the Administration is that it minimally shows that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given a full and fair consideration. The applicable legal framework allowed the consideration of gender and geographical diversity in the recruitment process.

As of the date of this Judgment, the Applicant has failed to comply with the Tribunal¡¯s orders. The Applicant did not submit an updated medical certificate explaining his failure to comply. The proceedings cannot continue when Counsel is not instructed by her client. The Applicant was no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the legal proceedings, which were therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and the matter was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the provided reason for not renewing the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not properly based on facts and, consequently, that the contested decision was unlawful. To determine remedies, through a subsequent judgment, the Tribunal instructed the parties to file final submissions on the matter taking into account its findings in the instant Judgment.

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. It was not disputed that since the Applicant was on private business at the time he fell ill, his case did not fall under any of the exceptions of sec. 6.3 of the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±). The Tribunal found that the MIP Rules clearly provide that only reasonable and customary expenses at the duty station are covered by the MIP and are, thus, considered as ¡°recognized expenses¡± unless one of the exceptions set out in...

The Tribunal held that regarding the Applicant¡¯s requests for compensation for time spent since she separated from the Organisation, salary arrears, interest of 15% paid on compensation and salary arrears and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medical bills these claims were not awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and such could not be claimed as part of the execution. As such, all the four claims were rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the only issue relevant to the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that was still pending was the interest due on awards granted therein. Accordingly...

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant¡¯s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Related