Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and found that the Organization followed the instructions provided by the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et. al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-692, and properly considered the Applicant¡¯s suitability for a permanent appointment in the reconsideration exercise that led to the contested decision of 17 March 2017. According to the evidence on file, the Administration assessed the Applicant¡¯s qualifications, competencies and transferable skills while taking into account the overall interests of the Organization. Considering that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵKART is a downsizing entity, the Tribunal...

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal refused to entertain the application. It found that the Applicant had submitted a most confused and inarticulate application. The application had many flaws. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that a summary judgment was appropriate and the application was accordingly refused.

The Tribunal, after hearing evidence and submissions but before reaching a determination on the merits of the case save for a finding of procedural error, decided that this was an appropriate case in which to invoke art. 10.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute to seek the concurrence of the Secretary-General to remand the case for institution or correction of the required procedure. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to approach the Secretary-General directly and not through Counsel who represents the SecretaryGeneral as the Respondent in this case. The Tribunal considered that such an approach would: (i...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified, did not mean that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Noting that the position in question remained vacant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the record that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a rehearing de...