Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

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.

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.

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...

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 legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had made the Applicant applying and being selected to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF vacant post a condition for his return. The Tribunal found that by imposing such a condition to the Applicant¡¯s return, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF violated the terms of his secondment, under which the Applicant retained ¡°rights to employment¡± in the releasing organization (i.e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF). Compensation in lieu of rescission: although the chain of events lead to ending the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF, this was not the direct consequence of the contested decision, i.e., conditioning the Applicant¡¯s return to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF service after...

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.

He claims that all other retirees who had been employed were granted the maximum of 125 working days under ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2, while he was granted only 106 working days in 2013. The Chief, CTS, allegedly favored those retirees who invited him/made him gifts, while the Applicant was discriminated and retaliated, since he had reported the unethical behavior by the Chief, CTS. The Tribunal found that retirees have no ¡°right¡± to be employed for a maximum of 125 working under the terms of ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2. The Applicant failed to provide evidence that the decision was motivated by extraneous...

The Tribunal ruled that the transfer within the recipient organization does not fall within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction and that, hence, the application was irreceivable ratione materiae in this respect. Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF's alleged failure to intervene to prevent the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, while conceding that the Organization has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its employees, the Tribunal found that such duty had not been breached in this case, since the Applicant informed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF of her reassignment only a few days before she ceased being a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF staff member following her inter-organization...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision was in violation of an express written promise of renewal for three months by the head of her mission.

The Tribunal found that within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, the authority to place a staff member on SLWFP rests with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Executive Director, and that his authority was not duly delegated to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Official. In view of that, the Tribunal concluded that the decision-maker did not have the competence to take the contested decision, ordered its rescission and awarded USD1,000 to the Applicant as moral damages for the breach of her rights due to that fundamental procedural flaw. The compensation was restricted to the fact that the Applicant had stated on several occasions that while she did contest the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not timely submit his request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to identify in clear and precise terms specific administrative decision(s), actions or omissions, including their dates. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted despite reminders sent by the Staff Union, and once the Applicant realized that her application had not been processed, she still did not take any action to rectify the situation, and filed her application only nearly two years later. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the circumstances the Applicant described could not be considered ¡°beyond her control¡±, and rejected her request for a waiver of the time limit to file her application as being unfounded; hence the application was rejected as being time-barred.