Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2013/163, Applicant
The application was withdrawn by the Applicant. The Applicant's request for redaction was granted in part and his name to be redacted from the judgment.
The application was withdrawn by the Applicant. The Applicant's request for redaction was granted in part and his name to be redacted from the judgment.
Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...
The Applicant did not contest the proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a result of his impending retirement, the Applicant filed a motion requesting to withdraw his application under the understanding that he would not be able to re-litigate the present matter in the future. In light of the Applicant's withdrawal of his application the case is closed.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn in its entirety, including on the merits, with no right of reinstatement. The Applicant having confirmed that she was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of her application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found that she was evaluated fairly with respect to both the written test and the interview, which was based on appropriate criteria. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found that the selection process was not biased against the Applicant and that consideration of her candidacy was not marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or result in a failure to give her proper consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT dismissed the application.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate and without prejudice to the Applicant¡¯s right, if necessary, to file an application under art. 2.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute seeking to enforce the implementation of the agreement reached through mediation.
Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.
The Applicant does not deny that her claim for compensation regarding two claims under Appendix D to the Staff Rules was time-barred. Rather, she submits that the record shows that the delay incurred by her in submitting a claim to the ABCC was the result of her being unable to obtain clear advice from HRMS regarding the process to follow with regard to submitting a claim to the ABCC. The ABCC decision is partially rescinded and the Applicant¡¯s request for the reimbursement of the Ayurveda treatment is remanded to the ABCC for a fair and full consideration. The Tribunal included observations...
In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.
Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not commit the misconduct of providing false information in his annual leave report. The Respondent correctly established the facts for the remaining charges of the misconduct. However, the Respondent did not fully take into account all the mitigating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction. The Tribunal found the disciplinary measure disproportionate to the misconduct and modified it. The contested decision is rescinded. The disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of...