Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal ruled that the selection procedure was flawed on grounds that: (a) first and foremost, the evaluations of the candidates as agreed to by the panel had been substantially modified prior to their transmission to the Director-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, for the final decision, without the approval of the panel members; (b) the panel gave the Applicants misleading instructions during the interview that impacted negatively on their ratings; (c) the Director-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, was not demonstrably provided with a documented record enabling him to make an informed selection decision; (d) no written...

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...

Request for management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that the Applicant had submitted a request to any entity or individual, including the Secretary-General, mandated to receive management evaluation requests as he did not provide any address, physical or electronic, of these entities or individuals. Nor did the Applicant provide any acknowledgment of receipt of any request for management evaluation by the Administration. The Tribunal subsequently held that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that he had indeed submitted a request for management evaluation of...

Res judicata: The Tribunal held that a request made to or a decision of MEU does not operate as an express or disguised form of res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies as a rule to judicial decisions. Thus, the Tribunal is not bound by the finding of MEU except for the limitation put on its judicial powers by having a suspension of action, which is a judicial order, lapse following a finding of MEU, which is strictly an administrative decision. Priority consideration: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was found unsuitable for the post, the failure to consider his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided to join both cases and following a review of the procedure followed, found both decisions to be illegal. It ordered the rescission of both decisions and that a new decision be taken on the Applicant¡¯s complaint. It also considered that the irregularities committed resulted in undue delay in the handling of the complaint, which caused the Applicant moral harm warranting compensation of 8,000 Swiss francs.

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, ratione materiae, since the Applicant failed to file a timely request for management evaluation.

The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU¡¯s writing in the MEU¡¯s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant¡¯s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Where a member of an assessment panel is conflicted, s/he cannot take part in the selection process. It is irrelevant for the outcome of the present case, that the Head, PMCS, and the Director, DESS, confirmed in their evidence to the Tribunal that they did not feel any bias or resentment against the Applicant. Indeed, a subjective feeling is irrelevant and the question of impartiality or bias has to be analysed from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer. It is also irrelevant whether the Applicant had a subjective feeling that one or more of the Panel members were biased...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...