Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Administration properly qualified the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards the Complainants as sexual harassment, but found the sanction disproportionate to the offence. The Tribunal is of the view that, while in the assessment of accusations of harassment the test focuses on the conduct itself - and requires an objective examination as to whether it could be expected or perceived to cause offence or humiliation to a reasonable person, being not necessary instead to establish that the alleged offender was ill-intended (see Belkahbbaz Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-2018-873, para. 76) -, the lack of...

Whether the Administration provided a valid and fair reason for the contested decision In determining whether a valid and fair reason exists to terminate the Applicant¡¯s appointment for unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will examine in turn the following issues: i. Whether the Applicant in fact failed to meet the performance standards; ii. Whether he was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required standards; iii. Whether he was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standards; and iv. Whether termination of appointment is an appropriate action for...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

There was no express indication that the Judgment of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court was executable upon issuance, neither was the issue investigated by the administration in the proceedings leading to the impugned decision. Rather, pertinent documents focus on the finality, apparently presumed from the title ¡®Final judgment of dissolution of marriage¡¯. The title should not have been relied upon. The contested decision was not based on a court order whose enforceability was unequivocal. The Tribunal did not find any indication of the judgment by the Third District Court of Appeal of the State...

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months¡¯ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months¡¯ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent¡¯s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

Regardless of how the Applicant may intend to define the contested decision, it is clear from the application and its supporting documents, as well as from the request for management evaluation, that the events in dispute date back to March and April 2019. The Applicant therefore missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The application not receivable ratione materiae.

The suspension of action was granted and the adverse report ordered to be removed from the applicant¡¯s official status file pending the outcome of the substantive proceeding.

Two types of interim measures - with different functions, preconditions, restrictions and scope - have to be clearly distinguished. Art. 13 RoP has to be applied exclusively during the pendency of the management evaluation, whereas art. 14 RoP is appropriate only during judicial review in terms of art. 2 and 8 Statute; in short: it is either 13 or 14 ¨C never both. Orders based on art. 13 RoP become ineffective with the end of management evaluation. The present application had to be considered under art. 13 RoP since the contested decision of 12 October 2009 was released under new conditions...

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

The Applicant sought a further extension of time on 16 October 2009 to file her substantive application after the Tribunal had previously granted her 21 days to do so. This extension expired on 16 October 2009. The Tribunal noted that: the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had applied to withdraw from representing the Applicant for want of instructions; the request for extension was filed on the date of expiry of the previous Order, and moved the Tribunal for a further extension of 1 year; the Applicant alluded to ¡°direct negotiations¡± being underway; ¡°with the Respondent in this matter¡±, but failed to...