Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent¡¯s obligation to notify...

The Applicant submitted that his initial ¡°informal¡± enquiries into a possible review of his retirement age only began in July 2016, and that his first formal query of the date was not until 13 August 2016. It was difficult to imagine why the Applicant never thought to query the applicable position, or seek to have the mandatory retirement age in respect of himself reviewed, until five months before he was actually due to retire. Indeed, the Applicant had not sought to even challenge any of the Respondent¡¯s submissions on receivability. While the Tribunal appreciated that a self-represented...

The Applicant failed to comply with art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO¡¯s negative comments and rating in the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSMIL. Thus, the SRO¡¯s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was generally not receivable because the Applicant was specifically challenging MEU¡¯s negative responses to her various requests for management evalution. This conclusion nothwithstanding, the Tribunal reviewed each of the Applicant¡¯s claims and concluded that they were not receivable because she: failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in relation to her claim that there was a ¡°wall of silence¡± was estopped from re-litigating her claim in relation to the delay in releasing the results of...

The Applicant did not conduct herself with the ¡°honesty and truthfulness¡± that was expected of her. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant placed herself in a position in which her interests conflicted with those of the Organization.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge in relation to the decision to cancel his administrative leave (¡°AL¡±) was without merit. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence showed that the Applicant was placed on AL after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS had received allegations of intimidation, harassment and other misconduct against him in the Sudan office. The Applicant did not contest the decision to place him on AL but only the decision informing him that his AL had not been extended and that no disciplinary action was being taken against him regarding the allegations. Accordingly, the decision not to extend...

It was not unreasonable to infer that on 3 July 2015, having gone through the rigors of a criminal judicial proceeding and having been acquitted of all charges, the Applicants became aware that there may have been breaches of the applicable rules governing their arrest and detention as United Nations staff members and the waiver of their immunities. The Applicants¡¯ causes of action in relation to the remedies for the alleged breaches of the procedures under A/63/331 and ST/AI/299 arose on 3 July 2015. Accordingly, pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c) the Applicants were, therefore, required to seek...

The Tribunal accepted the application in part. It awarded the Applicant one-month¡¯s net base salary for moral damages and two-months¡¯ net base salary for breach of her employment contract. The Tribunal found that the manner in which the Applicant was treated by the ESCWA management deserved compensation. The evidence showed that the Applicant was removed from her functions without prior notice. She was requested to turn over her security pass and leave the premises immediately. She was not allowed to enter the premises without authorization. In this regard, the Tribunal found that compensation...

The Applicant was informed in February 2007 that his promotion must follow a competitive recruitment process. The contention that he should have been promoted to the G-5 level at the time could and should have been challenged when the Applicant received formal notification of his retroactive promotion in October/November 2007. He did not. He also did not challenge the Respondent¡¯s letter of 6 May 2015.