Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, on the one hand, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA decision to close the case given the conclusions of the investigation constituted a valid exercise of discretion by the Administration, and that the Organization did not breach the Applicant¡¯s rights by not sharing the full investigation report with her. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA failed to take diligent action with respect to the Applicant¡¯s complaint and that it incurred inordinate delays both in reviewing and assessing the Applicant¡¯s complaint and in setting up a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation into her...

Receivability: Confirmative decisions do not reset the clock with respect to statutory time limits; however, if, despite having issued an earlier decision denying benefits, 1) the Organization undertakes a new verification procedure under the terms of the applicable rules at the time of said earlier decision (in this case ST/SGB/2013/4), 2) that process is not finalized, and 3) a subsequent decision denying benefits is taken under a new set of rules (in this case ST/SGB/2003/14/Rev. 1), the latter decision constitutes a new, final decision, and statutory time limits start to run anew. Non...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of staff rule 3.6 and ST/AI/2011/5 and could not claim dependent child status for her niece. The application was dismissed.

Abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent¡¯s restructuring strategy.

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Moral damages ¨C As held in Asariotis 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-309, damages for a moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed (be they specifically designated in the Staff Regulations and Rules or arising from the principles of natural justice). Where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may of itself give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of...

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

Interpretation ¨C As held in Sidell 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-489 and Abbasi 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-315, the purpose of interpretation is not to determine the disagreement of an applicant with a judgment who wishes to reargue an appeal. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.

The application was rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.