Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The fact that the application was filed on 25 June 2019, a day after the deadline, was not disputed. The contested decision was sent to the Applicant on 25 March 2019, though he maintained that he saw it on 26 March 2019. Even if the Applicant considered 26 March 2019 to have been the date of receipt of the contested decision, the deadline for filing the application would still have been Monday, 24 June 2019. The argument that the Respondent should be considered to have consented to the jurisdiction of the Court since he failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge in time was found to be...

The Tribunal found that the decision to abolish the post of Senior Child Protection Officer in Darfur, Sudan is not subject to judicial review. That aspect of the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that the Administration did not act unlawfully by not renewing the Applicant¡¯s contract because the contract itself was clear that it was expiring on 31 December 2018. Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal.

The offences alleged in the instant case were of a complex nature and were framed in a manner that required several discrete facts to be established so that a sanction of separation could be justified. Each element of the allegations of misconduct the Administration found to have been established was therefore subject to review. With the account of one person to be weighed against another, the Respondent had to properly consider issues of credibility on the record. There was no indication that the Respondent considered the two possible motives. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the disciplinary...

The Tribunal found the application receivable because: 1)Although the Applicants, who were self-represented, referred to and addressed some of the findings in the management evaluation response at section VII of their application, the applications were evidently not directed at the Management Evaluation Unit response but rather at the decision not to renew their appointments beyond 30 June 2019. 2)The 5 April 2019 notice was not unambiguous and the non-extension decision may have been interpreted as conditioned upon the future General Assembly resolution on the budget. The communication dated...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Admiistrative Services Division had...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Administrative Services Division had...

With regard to GJO No. 425940, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified on 19 February 2014 that his application had been unsuccessful. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision until over four years later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim relating to GJO No. 425940 was not receivable ratione materiae and it was dismissed. For GJO No. 76109, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that the Administration did not give his candidacy fair and adequate...

The Tribunal found that neither JA nor TA were refugees, or beneficiaries of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR assistance or fell within the prohibitions stipulated in staff rule 1.2(e). The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations made against a staff member are conclusive evidence that the staff member was responsible for the reputational damage caused thereby to the Organization. The Applicant had no control over what the media chose to report. Hence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR basing its decision on these facts was unlawful as they were extraneous to the case at hand and irrelevant. The...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had imposed a harsher sanction on the Applicant than was necessary. The sanction was found to be disproportionate and manifestly abusive in relation to the circumstances faced by the Applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to replace the original disciplinary sanction for another one with less gravity, namely-separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had shown and the Applicant had not disputed through clear and convincing evidence that all relevant regulations, rules, administrative issuances and policies were complied with in considering the Applicant¡¯s medical entitlements. There was no administrative decision carrying direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of appointment to adjudicate on, since subsequent to filing the application on 24 September 2018, the Applicant¡¯s claim were fully satisfied in November 2019. The Respondent having rescinded its decision...