Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which is superior in the hierarchy of norms to the Staff Rules, states that an applicant should file an application within 90 days following the expiry of the 45-day period for the management evaluation if the Administration has not replied to his/her request. If the Administration replies after the 45-day period but before the expiry of the 90-day period, a new 90-day period to contest a decision before the Tribunal starts to run. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the...

The respondent had sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant had, by altering the form, breached a fundamental requirement safeguarding the integrity of the refugee resettlement programme of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. This amounted to serious misconduct and was in breach of staff regulation 1.2. However, the failure to have due regard to independent evidence of an oppressive work environment and by not carrying out a proper investigation, as unanimously recommended in the JDC report, the Secretary-General effectively deprived himself of material which would have placed the misconduct in its proper...

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants¡¯ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ international legal instruments on human rights. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant¡¯s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...

It was not disputed that the Applicant borrowed money from a Sales Manager working in a company doing business with MONUC. In the light of the applicable law and in particular the financial and procurement rules, the Tribunal found that misconduct had been properly established. Nonetheless, the Tribunal found a certain number of mitigating factors such as the fact that he repaid the loan in full and that it was a ¡°one-off decision¡±. Therefore, the Tribunal took the view that the sanction was not proportionate.

The Tribunal found that both the decision to remove the applicant from her post and the decision to place her on SLWFP constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion pursuant to former staff regulation 1.2 (c) and former staff rule 105.2 (a), respectively. However, the Tribunal also considered that keeping the applicant on SLWFP for four years and four months breached staff rule 105.2 (a), as it did not serve the interests of the Organization. The Tribunal further found that this breach had caused the applicant moral injury for which she should be compensated. Disguised...

The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae as Defence Counsel at the ICTR who have a particular status, which is defined by the internal rules of the ICTR and the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda dated 24 September 1996.

The judge must raise on his/her own motion the issue of receivability of an application and in particular verify whether the requirements of former staff rule 111.2 (a) have been complied with since the request for review of an administrative decision is a mandatory prerequisite for filing an appeal before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal. The absence of the request for review leads to the irreceivability of the application (see judgments Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/158, Osman; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/070, Planas; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/054, Nwuke; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/035, Caldarone). The Tribunal¡¯s competence is limited, pursuant to art. 2.1 (a) of the...

The various letters of appointment that the applicant had received in the past contained a provision of non-expectancy of renewal. The applicant¡¯s main contention was that the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was an act of retaliation because he reported some allegations of financial fraud. The respondent¡¯s primary submission is that the non-renewal of the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was based on unsatisfactory performance as evidenced in some PAS reports, which had later been upheld by a rebuttal panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was...