Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to take into account the Applicant¡¯s recent disciplinary record was not a new disciplinary sanction but an exercise of discretion with regard to a new and separate discretionary administrative process. The contested decision did not amount to unequal or unfair treatment of the Applicant as compared to staff members with existing permanent appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration considered the Applicant eligible for consideration for conversion, but determined that he was not suitable for conversion in view of the recent disciplinary sanction...

Testimony of anonymous witnesses: The Tribunal held that the testimony of witnesses whom the Applicant has not had the opportunity to confront in proceedings is not inadmissible per se. However, a decision adverse to a staff member in a disciplinary case may not be based solely on this. There must be some independent evidence that can confirm the anonymous testimony, especially where the staff member has not had a chance to confront the witnesses and therefore challenge any incriminating evidence they have given against the staff member. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of due...

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...

Due process: The Tribunal held that there were two serious procedural flaws that violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights: (i) the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook unduly restricted the grounds on which the Applicant could rebut her performance appraisal in a way not envisaged by ST/AI/2002/3; and (ii) By misinforming the Applicant and effectively causing her to abandon the other legitimate grounds of rebuttal she had intended to rely on, the Director of Human Resources flawed the whole rebuttal process. Rebuttal process: The Tribunal held that the rebuttal process was also flawed because the Rebuttal Panel...

The Tribunal found that the decision was lawful and that the case file did not allow concluding that it was tainted by favoritism for the selected, external candidate, inter alia, since the HM had initially recommended an internal candidate. Procedural irregularities: The decision not to convoke a shortlisted, internal candidate, who was not recommended by the HM, for a test and/or interview is in accordance with the applicable rules at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR policy on comparative review is not applicable in cases of non-selection not involving the abolition of post. Discretionary authority: In...

Jurisdiction over decisions of the Ethics Office: The work of the Ethics Office is delicate in nature and its functions have a direct impact on staff member¡¯s rights. Therefore, in view of the case law of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the decision of the Ethics Office is an administrative decision and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review such a decision. Duration for conducting a preliminary assessment by the Ethics Office: The nature of the work of the Ethics Office requires timely reaction for effective protection of any ¡®whistle-blowing¡¯ activity. Although the duration of 45 days mentioned in section 5.3 of ST...

In that judgment, the Tribunal had inter alia found that the decision to require the Applicant to revert to his initial P-3 post had not been the subject of a management evaluation and consequently was not receivable. He requested the Tribunal to vacate certain paragraphs of the judgment. The Tribunal held that for a request for revision to be successful, all the requirements in art.12.1 of its Statute have to be met.

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant was not qualified to address Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...