Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds that the facts on which the disciplinary measures are based were established. Judicial review of disciplinary sanctions (1): As the Applicant challenges the disciplinary measures on the sole ground that he did not commit the purported actions, there are no grounds for the Tribunal, once it has found that the facts are established, to consider whether these facts legally amount to misconduct and whether the sanctions imposed on the Applicant were proportionate. Judicial review of disciplinary sanctions (2): The circumstance that an investigation into misconduct might have...

The initial decision not to confirm the Applicant to the post was taken by an unidentified person whereas only the High Commissioner has the authority to take decisions on promotions. This decision must therefore be rescinded by the Tribunal. A second decision not to confirm her to the post was taken by the High Commissioner following a recourse submitted by the Applicant to the APPB and the Tribunal must examine the legality of this decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Representative, who decided not to recommend the Applicant¡¯s confirmation to the post, took this decision without informing her beforehand and...

The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant¡¯s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...

Regulatory decisions v. individual administrative decisions: An applicant may plead the unlawfulness of a regulatory decision only in the context of an appeal against an individual administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory decision. The Tribunal may not rescind a regulatory decision.

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post was a valid exercise of the Organization¡¯s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

Award of allowances: The award of an allowance is contingent upon the existence of a written text. The fact that, in breach of the applicable provisions, the Administration granted the end-of-service allowance to staff members who were in the same situation as the Applicant cannot serve as a basis for awarding the allowance to her. Applicability of national laws: National legislations are not directly applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, and it is for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ authorized bodies to implement such legislation into the internal laws of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Judicial review: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interpret...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable ratione temporis but rejected it on the merits, on the ground that the post whose functions the Applicant carried out was not vacant or temporarily vacant within the meaning of ST/AI/1999/17. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages. Receivability ratione temporis: The serious health problem suffered by the Applicant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay in filing his application. The short period of time between the end of his sick leave and the filing of his application shows that the...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Tribunal considered that the Administration had erred in finding that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. It awarded him USD10,000 for the moral injury he had suffered because of the way in which the matter was dealt with by the Administration. Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: Disagreements on work performance or on other work-related...

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...