Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Decisions of the General-Assembly - A decision of the General Assembly is binding on the Secretary-General who has a duty to implement it. The Applicant lacks the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of her appointment in so far as it is properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish it. Interpretation of section 3.7 (b) of ST/AI/2013/4 - Section 3.7 (b) does not envisage a situation of post abolishment. The said section contemplates a situation where the post formerly encumbered by a former or retired staff member continues to exist and the separated staff...

The Applicant, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

Appeals against Ethics Office: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the role of the Ethics Office under ST/SGB/2005/21 is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and that such recommendations do not in themselves affect terms of appointment of staff members. the review made by the Ethics Office is not a substitute to the internal system of justice, which includes the Dispute Tribunal. Therefore, filing of a complaint with the Ethics Office does not replace the requirements of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, its Rules of Procedures, and the Staff Rules. Any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s substantive post has not existed for the past two years and that the Applicant has temporarily encumbered vacant posts to which he was not recruited since then, it is evidently too late in the day to challenge the abolition of his post which took place in 2013. General Assembly Resolutions - To the extent that the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post was that of the GA, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the said decision.

The Tribunal held that the application was receivable since the Applicant was alleging non-compliance with the terms of his appointment¡ªnamely, the obligation to act reasonably and in good faith¡ªas a consequence of an alleged breach of an express promise creating a legitimate expectation. However, turning to the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the Administration had not created a legitimate expectation when the Executive Office of the Department of Safety and Security informed him that ¡°barring unforeseen circumstances, it is the intention of the Department to extend [your] fixed...

The facts at issue and their legal characterization (physical assault) were established. However, the Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was disproportionate, considering that the mitigating circumstances applicable, notably the Applicant¡¯s mental health condition at the time of the incident giving rise to the disciplinary measure and alleged provocation before it, were not fully and properly considered. It was noted that the investigation failed to gather sufficient evidence on these aspects, which where thus not properly put before the decision-maker. Unlawfulness of a ¡°forfeit...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision, since the decision to close the case had no direct legal consequences for the Applicant. Administrative decision: While staff members have a duty to report possible misconduct, a decision by the Organization not to investigate the matter does not have direct legal consequences on the contractual rights of the staff member, unless the complaint made by the staff member was one of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5.

The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The rejection of creating a ¡°separate case¡± for the Applicant¡¯s motion for interim relief in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to fulfil its obligations by not making timely payments to the Applicant under art. 11.2(d) of Appendix D for the two periods concerned, and that the amounts paid to the Applicant did not compensate him for the delay in payment as they should have. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant material damages in the amount of USD29,261.86 plus CHF10,544.50, and compensation for any additional taxes due by the Applicant, upon presentation of his tax declarations to the Respondent, resulting from the receipt of a lump sum of USD72,266.46 in 2015, instead of...