Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant contended that the Complainant¡¯s evidence contained numerous discrepancies and that the Complainant had exercised prevarication over her own statements and had displayed ambivalence over attempts to privately resolve the matter. The Applicant further contended that the finding of sexual harassment was based on the victim¡¯s own perception of the Applicant¡¯s actions. The Tribunal found that: based on the testimony and the entire file, the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were established; by any objective measure, the Applicant¡¯s conduct was prohibited by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thus granted leave for the Applicants¡¯ amended submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT closed the case.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that General Assembly resolution 63/253, by which the Assembly adopted the statutes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, imposed limitations on their jurisdiction. Interns presently do not have access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Having found that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed it without consideration of its merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the Respondent to (i) remove adverse material from the Organization¡¯s files, (ii) send to the Member States that received the summary a copy of the Judgment and explanatory statement, (iii) pay monetary compensation in the amount of USD60,000 for non-pecuniary harm, including emotional distress and damage caused to the Applicant¡¯s reputation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s claims for direct economic loss.

Receivability: In light of the Respondent¡¯s own arguments in this case, it should have been clear that the decision taken clearly falls within the type of decisions contemplated by art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. This Tribunal has moved toward a less rigid and more purposive interpretation of what constitutes an administrative decision and parties should not fail to take into account the developing case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal. Incomplete applications: There may be cases where an application for sabbatical leave, while formally containing the documents and...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General acted properly within his broad discretion in deciding to take no action in relation to the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

The Applicant claimed that: the decision was discriminatory and the decision-maker sought retribution for, inter alia, the Applicant¡¯s failure to choose the decision-maker¡¯s favoured candidate in a selection process; the matter was urgent due to the impending expiration of the Applicant¡¯s contract; and the decision would cause irreparable harm because the Applicant would lose his job and current livelihood. The Respondent contended that the application should be rejected outright because the Applicant did not pursue his claim with due diligence. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant...