Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

Due Process: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded in Molari that ¡°disciplinary cases are not criminal.¡± So therefore the right and rules pertaining to self-incrimination are purely associated with criminal procedure and therefore does not apply in this instance which is a disciplinary case. The Tribunal finds that she was provided systematically with the evidence, including the payslips in the course of the interview, in addition to an opportunity to review the record of interview. Ultra vires: In this case the person who took the decision as recorded in the letter of dismissal was the Under Secretary-General for...

Staff rule 12/3(b) ¨C exception to staff rules: The Tribunal held that under the unique circumstances of this case, that is, the requests from MINURSO recognizing the Applicant¡¯s suitability for the post and the Mission¡¯s dire operational needs, for the Respondent to have properly complied with staff rule 12.3(b), the Applicant¡¯s existing educational qualifications along with his professional qualifications and language skills should have been considered regardless of whether or not they were equivalent to a high school diploma.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision that the Applicant was not eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment was lawful.

Due Process: It is Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence that based on the staff rules there is no mandatory right to counsel for staff members who are undergoing interviews during the preliminary investigation of allegations for misconduct. Ultra vires: The author of the decision in this case was not the person who signed the 15 August 2011 dismissal letter but, as referred to in the letter, was the Under-Secretary-General for Management who took the decision on behalf of the Secretary-General. Pursuant to ST/AI 371/Amend.1, the decision-maker had the proper authority to do so and the decision was not ultra...

Effect of the breach of due process rights: The Tribunal found that while the Applicant had been denied some of his due process rights at the investigation stage, this breach was cured by the subsequent court proceedings. Further, the Tribunal held that the sanction of summary dismissal was fully justified in view of: (i) the status of the Applicant in the procurement process of ECA; (ii) the fact that he contracted with United Nations vendors without disclosing that fact in clear terms; and (iii) the fact that he was engaged to some extent in the activities of two other companies without...

The Applicant contended that the transfer decision was unlawful in that it was arbitrary and adopted and implemented in breach of mandatory procedures and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD senior management acted in bad faith and with ulterior motives when doing so. The Respondent submitted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD senior management acted within its margin of discretion and on properly reasoned grounds based on the Applicant¡¯s skills and qualifications and the operational needs of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD both in New York and Geneva. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided to the Applicant for his transfer were not justified by the...

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

The Respondent submitted that the application was filed out of time as the Applicant had submitted it after 5 p.m. (closing hour of the New York Registry) on the last filing day. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Statute and the Rules of Procedure provide that applications are to be filed within 90 calendar days from the date of notification of the outcome of management evaluation, and, therefore, the applicant had until the expiration of the last calendar day of the filing period to file his application, regardless of the working hours of the Registry. Having done so, his application was receivable...

The administrative decision that was being challenged was made on the recommendation of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (¡°ABCC¡±). The Tribunal found that the ABCC was correct in rejecting the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation for injuries suffered from the car accident.