Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and found that the evidence on the record supports the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the staff member¡¯s absence from 18 January 2017 to 26 July 2018 was unauthorized, as she did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for her failure to report to work. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the refusal of the Medical Services Division (MSD) to certify the staff member¡¯s sick leave request after 18 January 2017 was reasonable and that the MSD was the competent technical body to evaluate medical certifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member had the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...

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...

The contested decision was prima facie unlawful for the following reasons: i) there was a promise of renewal by the officer-in-charge that created a legitimate expectation of renewal, which placed on the Respondent a duty to consider whether it was not in the interest of the organisation that the expectation of the renewal of the employment should be fulfilled; and ii) the decision not to renew the contract of the Applicant appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and amounted to an abuse of discretion. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was prima facie unlawful because it appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and in breach of international legal norms relating to due process. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract would be terminated on 3 September 2009. Notwithstanding that it had allegedly been agreed that the contract would be extended after 3 September 2009, the matter was still urgent because this was not the first time that this particular strategy had been used by the Respondent towards the Applicant. Having...

Prima facie unlawfulness: There is positive evidence from the applicant as to what her supervisor stated and some evidence suggesting ill will on the part of her supervisor. The low test of reasonable arguability is satisfied and accordingly, the prerequisite of prima facie unlawfulness is present. Urgency: The applicant provided reasonable explanations for the delay in contesting the decision and the contract was to expire the day of the hearing; therefore, the urgency requirement is satisfied. Irreparable damage: Mere economic loss can never be irreparable since, if the applicant succeeds in...

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article...

Staff members with permanent appointments are afforded additional protections, particularly when nearing retirement age. Administration¡¯s obligation to protect the position of a permanent staff member includes, at least, an enquiry and the taking of reasonable steps to ascertain if there were any suitable positions available for the staff member. The staff member is required to cooperate in this search but the responsibility for protecting the position of the permanent employee is primarily with the employer.The universal obligation of both employee and employer to act in good faith towards...

The Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence tendered before it in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absences. The Tribunal is not convinced that the reasons proffered by the Applicant to explain his unauthorized absences were beyond his control. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant was given ample opportunity to address this performance shortcoming. The Tribunal is satisfied, in consideration of the requirements of section 8.3 of ST/AI/2002/3, that the ICTR Administration had taken steps to rectify the situation in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absenteeism.