Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In light of the Applicant¡¯s withdrawal of his application for suspension of action and subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there is no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution, without determination of its merits, and the case is closed.

A re-trial would be unduly wasteful of time and resources. The Respondent was adequately represented especially as no oral evidence was tendered by the Applicant and the issue of cross- examining a witness did not arise. Full equality was accorded the parties in the circumstances. The onus lies on the Respondent to show that the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3 had been complied with in this case in order to prove that the Applicant was fully, fairly and properly considered. This onus has not been discharged.The Applicant¡¯s candidature was not considered at the 15-day mark as required by the...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has been consistently dilatory in the pursuit of this claim. Leaving the matter open on the court¡¯s docket would be inappropriate in view of the Applicant¡¯s clear lack of interest in pursuing this claim.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the transfer decision was arbitrary or based on improper motives. Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. In the case at hand, the only decision that was the subject of a request for management evaluation, and that is therefore properly before the Tribunal, is the decision to transfer the Applicant laterally from Cairo to Abu Dhabi. The Applicant¡¯s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish his post and of...

With regard to due process requirements, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been afforded a hearing in regard to the charges alleged against him. Whilst the language used in the last paragraph of the USG¡¯s letter dated 8 November 2005 seemed to suggest that if the JDC made a request for the physical presence of the Applicant in Geneva such a request would be acceded to, the Tribunal was of the view that the JDC did not indicate in clear terms that the presence of the Applicant would be essential, the word used in Rule 29 and the USG¡¯s request did not violate the Applicant¡¯s rights to...

The Applicant asserts, inter alia, that she was harassed and discriminated against and that her performance evaluation process was not in accordance with the established procedures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was based on lawful grounds and was not vitiated by any improper considerations or procedural errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that there was an unreasonable delay in the rebuttal process. Although this delay had no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision, it caused emotional distress to the Applicant, for which she shall be compensated...

The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant...

Reassignments: Staff regulation 1.2 grants broad discretion to the Secretary-General in making reassignment decisions. However, such discretionary power is not unfettered: it is subject to respect for due process, and the absence of bias, discrimination, arbitrariness, or other extraneous motivations. While section 2.4 ST/AI/2006/3.Rev.1 envisages only lateral transfers to vacant posts, it does not preclude other kinds of transfer to be lawfully made. The decision contested in the present case does not contravene the said section 2.4, but falls beyond this provision¡¯s purview and, therefore...

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...