Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...

In making the final decision on the Applicants¡¯ complaint, the then Director General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

At the time of the management evaluation, the contested decision had not been implemented and, therefore, had not had any impact on the Applicants¡¯ terms of employment. The contested administrative decision did not, therefore, constitute a reviewable administrative decision.

The Applicant did not advance any exception to the rule that General Assembly resolutions may not be amenable to judicial review by the Tribunal. Those exceptions arise where the Secretary-General is mandated to interpret an ambiguous regulatory decision, to comply with procedures or where the implementation of the resolution involves application of a criteria. In the instant case, the Secretary-General¡¯s role in implementation of the resolution to abolish the P-4 Engineering position was mechanical and was not reviewable . In that regard, the Respondent was correct that that limb of the...

The Applicant¡¯s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO¡­ Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant¡¯s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to ¡°proactively assist¡± the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that at the earliest, the deadline to request management evaluation started to run on 22 August 2019 and expired on 21 October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s 18 October 2019 request for management evaluation was timely and that her application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further held that the decision to pay the Applicant¡¯s repatriation grant at the single rate was in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy as well as Annex IV to the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations and was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.