Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the facts on which the sanction was based had not been established and the facts that were established did not legally amount to misconduct. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore a violation of his rights. Witness statements: The Tribunal concluded that the witness statements without averments of truthfulness could not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant solicited and obtained money from the five complainants in return for their recruitment as casual daily...

Consolidation of applications: The Tribunal concluded that consolidation would not have any effect on the parties¡¯ rights as the two applications are virtually identical and each party will have the opportunity to have its case fully considered both as to receivability and on the merits albeit in one judgment. Receivability of the classification decision: Noting that Fuentes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT-2010-064 and Fuentes 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-105 confirm that a failure to decide an appeal against classification of a post encumbered by the Applicant is an administrative decision which may be subject to review by the Tribunal...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s filing of an incomplete application met the time limits for filing an application set out in staff rule 11.4(a) and that as the incomplete application was filed in time, there was no requirement for the Applicant to request a suspension or waiver of the deadline.

Abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent¡¯s restructuring strategy.

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Moral damages ¨C As held in Asariotis 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-309, damages for a moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed (be they specifically designated in the Staff Regulations and Rules or arising from the principles of natural justice). Where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may of itself give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of...

Interpretation ¨C As held in Sidell 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-489 and Abbasi 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-315, the purpose of interpretation is not to determine the disagreement of an applicant with a judgment who wishes to reargue an appeal. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision.