Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.

The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant¡¯s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant¡¯s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM¡¯s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM¡¯s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...

The Tribunal found that a final decision had been taken on 27 September 2013 by the Registrar and notified to the Applicant on 14 October 2013 and that by filing a request for management evaluation only on 23 June 2014, the application was irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has to all intents and purposes complied with the requirements of art. 8.1 (c). The Administration has had an opportunity to evaluate his request and has refused it. The Applicant is now entitled to come before the Tribunal..

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The final decision taken on the placement of the reprimand in the Applicant¡¯s personnel file was on 25 February 2014 when her attempts to have her comments taken into consideration were finally exhausted. The course of action embarked on by the Applicant to have the matter resolved informally before resorting to the formal process was justifiable in the circumstances given the requirements of ST/AI/292.

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has satisfied the requirements of art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Whilst his request for management evaluation may not have been drafted in the most articulate legal language, the substance conveyed leaves no doubt, the Applicant did not want to be removed from his post and was not happy that it had been readvertized. The Respondent¡¯s objections on the grounds of receivability have no merit.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

Ultra vires - Whereas procedures and guidelines may be developed by the Organisation to implement promulgated issuances, it is unreasonable for said guidelines to be so far reaching as to effectively add new provisions to the overarching issuance. This would amount to a usurpation of the legislative powers of the General Assembly.

Hence, the pre-requisite of seeking management evaluation prior to filing an application before the Tribunal was not met. While, in an earlier management evaluation, the Applicant contested the decision not to advertise any posts of Russian Translator, P-3 at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON, even assuming that this management evaluation covered the decision impugned in the application, the latter was not filed within the statutory 90-day time limit as from the receipt of the reply to this earlier management evaluation request.

The Tribunal deemed that it was established that in October 2013, the Applicant, a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR in Turkey, had travelled to Syria in her capacity as a member of a delegation of the Women International Democratic Federation, responding to an invitation received from the Syrian Arab Republic General Women Union. During that visit, she attended a meeting with the President of Syria during which she handed him a flag with the words ¡°Do not yield¡± in Turkish. A picture of that encounter was taken and published in a Turkish online newspaper. The Tribunal considered that in view of the clear...

The Application was rejected on the merits.

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

Receivability - The Application was found to be manifestly inadmissible. The Dispute Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to revise a judgment after the Appeals Tribunal has ruled on the same matter. The request filed by the Applicant did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised way to attempt to re-open the case. Abuse of Process - Article 10.6 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal stipulates that where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, costs may be awarded against the offending party. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had...

She was charged with having ¡°1. Engaged in the unlawful use of government-issued customs passbooks ¡­ of two international staff members to purchase duty-free items; 2. Failed to transfer the ownership of, and pay the government tax for, a duty-free car [she] purchased from an international staff member, and [having driven it] with diplomatic license plates for at least three years; 3. Falsified the signature of ¡­ the former Deputy Representative, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Office, Bangladesh, on a Bill of Sale on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR letterhead dated 6 June 2010; and 4. Acted improperly when, on six occasions, [she] purchased...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had discharged the burden of proof in showing that her separation from the Organization was motivated by extraneous factors and improper motives. Extraneous factors ¨C There was increased animosity between the Applicant and her various supervisors both in Bor and later when she was transferred to Wau. Consequently, the Tribunal found that bias against the Applicant existed on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS management. Due Process/ Procedural flaw ¨C The responsible officials at the mission all defied the procedures provided for by ST/AI/371 for dealing with reports of...

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.