Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The contested decision was to go into effect on 1 June 2012. The initial papers were received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2012, and the Applicant subsequently re-filed her papers as proper application on 30 May 2012. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the urgency in this case was created by the Applicant as she was aware of the contested decision at least since 13 April 2012, and yet filed her proper application only two working days before the decision was to be implemented, providing no explanation for not filing it earlier. As the condition of particular urgency was not met, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not find it...

Assessment of irreparable damage in relation to non-selection decisions: The applicant was not the only recommended candidate and, therefore, it could not be concluded that he would have been selected for the litigious post. Accordingly, he failed to show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him irreparable damage.

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/029) ¨C merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

Certification of sick leave: If some staff members as a matter of practice communicated directly with the MSD rather than through their mission, such practice does not detract from or modify written legislation.Recognised regional medical centres: A country in serious political, economic and security situation was unlikely to be the place to seek adequate medical treatment for an ailment recognised by the organization as a condition for medical evacuation. Recovery of overpayment: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ being a humanitarian organization and in providing humanitarian assistance worldwide, needs to...

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).

Attempted theft: In the instant case, the Applicant¡¯s counsel cites the 23 June 2011 Judgment and argued that ¡°it follows that whereas the offence of an attempt to commit an act that could amount, if completed, to misconduct is not envisaged as a sanctionable offence within the prevailing legislative framework of the United Nations, the dismissal of the Applicant must be held to have been ultra vires.¡± This interpretation and application of the Tribunal¡¯s reasoning in the said judgment to this case and the Applicant¡¯s circumstances is misconceived and misleading. This is because the offence of...

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that ¡°[s]eparation as a result of ¡­ expiration of appointment ¡­ shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules¡±. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. Requirement to request for management evaluation for former staff members: Irrespective of whether an applicant is a current or a former staff member of the United Nations, he or she must request a management evaluation, where required, prior to filing his or her application with the Dispute Tribunal. Legal hierarchy and request for management evaluation: Even assuming that staff rule 11.2(a), insofar as it is silent on whether a former staff member must also request...

Receivability/administrative decision: It would be inconsistent with its standard of review to allow the Tribunal to interfere with the review of a performance appraisal before the rebuttal process has been finalised.

A review of other similar cases revealed that only one other staff member was separated for illegal possession/use of drugs, and that was a far more serious case. The sanction in the present case was disproportionate in the light of the comparators. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT endorsed Sow. Equality of treatment in the workplace is a core principle which must be applied by the Secretary-General when imposing disciplinary sanctions.