Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal confers it with power to deal with contemptuous conduct and is necessary to safeguard its judicial functions. This power need not be defined in the Tribunal¡¯s Statute or in its Rules of Procedure. Willful disobedience of the Tribunal¡¯s orders is contempt and is a direct attack upon the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and its power to undertake the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted in its Statute by the General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON management while disregarding the authority of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Villamoran on the duty of parties to comply with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action ¨C urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...

Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter...

The burden of establishing bias or the perception of bias lies with the Applicant once the Respondent has made a minimal showing of regularity in the recruitment process. The Applicant must establish with clear and convincing evidence that he was not given full and fair consideration for the vacancy. Whilst the Tribunal was surprised that a person in the Applicant¡¯s position and with the Applicant¡¯s experience should not be recommended, it was unable to conclude that the Applicant had not been given full and fair consideration, particularly in view of the fact that some 13 other candidates...

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.

The Tribunal found that there was not clear and convincing proof that the documents were fake and therefore that count failed. However, as regards the other charges, the Applicant had not denied the violations, rather he had indicated that his superior, the Country Representative, was to blame for giving instructions to the Applicant which were in breach of the rules. The Tribunal considered that the responsibility of an Operations Manager when dealing, in particular, with procurement matters, was such that he could not rely on instructions given from above. Therefore, his liability in respect...

The non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was predicated on her harassment complaint of 12 April 2012 against her supervisor. The Tribunal finds and holds that the three elements for a grant of an order for suspension of action have been established in this case.

The Tribunal finds that the Salary case was never properly before the Tribunal and is not receivable. It is within the discretionary authority of the Secretary-General to reconsider whether the existence of an injury is attributable to the performance of official duties. In this case, the Secretary-General has refused to exercise that discretion. The Applicant¡¯s claims in as far as they rely on art. 11 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules are therefore not receivable. With respect to all of the Applicant¡¯s other claims including her claim for DSA and air ticket for her daughter¡¯s travel in 2002...

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...