Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the application was filed within the applicable time limits. The Tribunal found that in respect to decision 3, the Applicant requested management evaluation outside the prescribed time limit and therefore the Application with regard to decision 3 was not receivable. Mediation and Time-Limits: If a party to a dispute makes mediation overtures within the applicable time lines for filing an Application and the other party consents to participation in the mediation process then the time limit for filing an Application is suspended and begins to run when the mediation has...

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this SOA in light of the fact that the Applicant had received a response to his request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Thus, the contested administrative decision was no longer the subject of an ongoing management evaluation as required under art. 2 of the Statute.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was based on improperly imposed conditions not stipulated under staff rule 4.18 and thus lacked proper legal basis. Further, it was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the contested decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, had the discretion been properly exercised on the stipulated conditions, the Applicant would have been reinstated in service and shall be treated as such. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered rescission of the contested decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered that the Applicant be deemed as reinstated in service and that proper adjustments be made...

Judicial review in disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, where the facts are established and undisputed, the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts in question constitute misconduct and whether the sanction imposed is proportionate to the misconduct. In this regard, the Tribunal may not intervene in the exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretionary authority, except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s claims with regard to the issue of lien and loan were without merit. With respect to the issue of placement on special leave without pay, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant should have been placed on sick leave on half salary and half annual leave for a period of up to three months. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the Respondent to make appropriate adjustments, including any related payments and adjustments to benefits and entitlements, to reflect the placement of the Applicant on three months of sick leave on half pay combined with half-day of annual leave commencing 22...

The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to a shifting of his candidature from one group to another, based on criteria which were not stipulated in the rules and at a stage in the course of the process of examination, which was in breach...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion.The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that there were candidates who had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process. The Tribunal further noted that although mistakes occurred, which were then corrected and...

The Dispute Tribunal shall not award exemplary or punitive damages. The Tribunal did not find any procedural flaws in the competitive review process as it was implemented in the Applicant¡¯s case. All three candidates for the PIO posts were assessed against the same methodology and criteria adopted by the CRP. The Applicant was not accorded full and fair consideration for the second P-3 PIO post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS contrary to the policy adopted by the CRP. In this regard, there were both substantive and procedural irregularities on the part of the Respondent.The Applicant is entitled to compensation for...

Administrative decision: Measures taken on the basis of ST/SGB/2008/5 must not be considered as preliminary decisions that cannot be contested. The absence of a response to an Applicant¡¯s specific requests may amount to an implicit administrative decision, if it has direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s rights as a staff member.

The Tribunal found that the PCO¡¯s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define ¡°personal data¡±, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Respondent had failed to fully comply with his obligations under ST/SGB/2008/5 with respect to the Applicant¡¯s complaints and that the Respondent had violated the Applicant¡¯s rights by not promptly providing her with a summary of findings and conclusions and by not investigating allegations of misconduct that impacted on her. Action to be taken under sec 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5: Depending on the circumstances of the case, section 5.14 may have two elements that must be satisfied by the Organization. The first component of section 5.14 is the review and assessment of the...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...

Confirmative decisions: These decisions do not re-open time limits for formal contestation.

The application is filed within the statutory deadline and is therefore receivable.

The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent¡¯s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...

Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members¡¯ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...

The Administration, having reviewed the OIOS report, had reason to believe that the Applicant may have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct for which disciplinary measures may be imposed. The discretion was exercised judiciously by the responsible officers after review of the OIOS Investigation Report. The findings of the ASG/OHRM were those of an objective observer who had scrutinized the entire dossier and made conclusions on the basis of the evidence before him. There was no procedural irregularity on the part of the Organization as there was full compliance with ST/AI/371. Where an Applicant...