The Tribunal found the application not receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant’s receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation.
Standard of review: In the context of a promotion exercise conducted under a specific policy, the Tribunal’s review is essentially focused on the implementation of the policy. It is not the Tribunal’s role to examine whether a policy adopted by the Organization is well-founded or appropriate. However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair consideration for promotion. The Tribunal cannot amend a policy adopted by the Organization but may “point out what...
Standard of review: In the context of a promotion exercise conducted under a specific policy, the Tribunal’s review is essentially focused on the implementation of the policy. It is not the Tribunal’s role to examine whether a policy adopted by the Organization is well-founded or appropriate. However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair consideration for promotion. The Tribunal cannot amend a policy adopted by the Organization but may “point out what...
Role of the MEU - The MEU’s role is restricted to conducting an impartial and objective evaluation of administrative decisions contested by staff members of the Secretariat to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with rules and regulations and not to act as Co-Counsel for the Respondent. Respondent’s disclosure of legally privileged email communications between the Applicant’s Counsel and MEU - Such activity compromises the perception of MEU as an independent, impartial and objective Unit and “would leadto the complete absence of any form of communication or possible mediation...
Standard of review: In the context of a promotion exercise conducted under a specific policy, the Tribunal’s review is essentially focused on the implementation of the policy. It is not the Tribunal’s role to examine whether a policy adopted by the Organization is well-founded or appropriate. However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair consideration for promotion. The Tribunal cannot amend a policy adopted by the Organization but may “point out what...
Standard of proof in disciplinary cases - In disciplinary proceedings it is well settled now that the evidence must be clear and convincing and that would include identification evidence. Evidence of misconduct must be clear and convincing. Findings of fact by the trial judge - As a trier of facts, a first instance judge has the means and power to assess the veracity and accuracy of a witness. The findings of fact of a trial judge should rarely be reversed on appeal unless the findings are so perverse that no reasonable person would have come to the conclusions reached on the facts by the...
The Tribunal found that the application, even if it was diligently filed by the Applicant, was premature as the Applicant’s reconsideration request was still pending before the Secretary-General.
蘑菇视频DT’s review of OLA’s letter. The Tribunal found that OLA’s letter of 11 August 2015 is not an administrative decision in the form of a settlement provided by the Administration based on OLA’s preliminary review of the Applicant’s claim for gross negligence pursuant to art. 3 of ST/SGB/230 or in a form of an offer to submit the claim to arbitration pursuant to art. 6 from ST/SGB/230. Even if OLA’s letter of 11 August 2015 were to be considered, as submitted by the Applicant, as a response to his “notice of arbitration”, the Tribunal would have no competence to review it. As clearly results...
The 蘑菇视频DT found that the first case (蘑菇视频DT/NY/2015/038) was not receivable due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the relevant time limit for the filing of her request for management evaluation. The 蘑菇视频DT found that the second case (蘑菇视频DT/NY/2015/038) was also not receivable as the Applicant’s argument that her earlier evaluation request (to which she received no reply) should be considered as the applicable management evaluation request would have resulted in her application being time-barred by several months.
