Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application for revision.

The Tribunal sought to find whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver of the receivability requirements. In the light of the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. In the present matter, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had totally failed to establish that he was hampered by exceptional circumstances to pursue his case with due diligence. The Tribunal found that the matter was time-barred.

The main legal issue in this case is whether there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. The Respondent made the bare assertion that the communication dated 21 September 2007 mistakenly referred to the cancellation of his appointment, whereas it was a withdrawal of the offer. Therefore, according to the Respondent no contract was created, the Applicant was not a staff member, and his application is not receivable. The Applicant submitted that there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the offer of appointment accepted by the Applicant and the...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. The lack of transparency alleged by the applicant is a general argument which, to be retained, must...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. While the Tribunal can only examine the legality of a decision which has been subject of a request...

The Respondent rested his case on the evidence of a witness on whom anonymity was conferred during the investigation and who was not called at the hearing. From the statements made by the witness during the investigation the Tribunal found that his/her testimony was fraught with irregularities and inconsistencies and could not be acted upon. The Tribunal also found that failure to call the witness for cross examination was a breach of the due process requirement. The Tribunal also held that when anonymity is conferred on a witness during the investigation, the Tribunal is not bound by this and...

Noting the agreement between the Parties, and the Applicant¡¯s notice of withdrawal, the Tribunal ordered that the matter be dismissed.

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. The High Commissioner was not bound to follow the APPB recommendations. He was able to legally...

A decision which has not been the subject of a request for a management evaluation cannot be contested before the Tribunal. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt...

The Tribunal is not seized of an intelligible application. The applicant has failed to identify the impugned administrative decision or decisions for which he is seeking relief. He has also failed to identify any steps taken by him to seek administrative review of the impugned administrative decisions. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (1) (a) and Article 8(1) of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the equivalent provisions of the Statute of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal to consider the application. Second, the applicant has failed to comply with two orders of the...

The applicant (but not his counsel) received a copy of the letter on 1 December 2008 and therefore had until 2 March 2009 to file his application. However, his application was dated 30 June 2009, or 120 days past the deadline, and it was received by the former Administrative Tribunal only on 6 July 2009. The respondent submitted as a preliminary matter that the application was time-barred. The applicant contended that his counsel had not been notified of the decision by the Administration and therefore counsel was unable to file a timeous appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant was informed of...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which is superior in the hierarchy of norms to the Staff Rules, states that an applicant should file an application within 90 days following the expiry of the 45-day period for the management evaluation if the Administration has not replied to his/her request. If the Administration replies after the 45-day period but before the expiry of the 90-day period, a new 90-day period to contest a decision before the Tribunal starts to run. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the...

The Deputy High Commissioner, who has received a delegation from the High Commissioner, is legally competent to carry out the management evaluation of a decision taken by the latter. The legality of a decision must be assessed as at the date when it was taken, and not in light of subsequent circumstances.As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. The lack of transparency alleged by the applicant is a general argument which, to be retained, must...

The Deputy High Commissioner, who has received a delegation from the High Commissioner, is legally competent to carry out the management evaluation of a decision taken by the latter. The legality of a decision must be assessed as at the date when it was taken, and not in light of subsequent circumstances. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of facts in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that...

The time for requesting a management evaluation in this case is specified in Staff Rule 111.2(c). This rule provides that a request for management evaluation should not be receivable by the Secretary-General unless it was sent within 60 days of notification of the contested administrative decision. The Secretary-General is able to extend this time limit pending efforts for informal resolution by the office of the Ombudsman. In this case there is no evidence that the parties submitted the matter to the office of the Ombudsman for mediation within the deadlines for filing a management evaluation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ international legal instruments on human rights. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant¡¯s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants¡¯ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

The Tribunal found that the appeal against the first decision was both time-barred and without merits, and that the appeal against the second decision was time-barred. The Tribunal further concluded that the respondent had properly exercised his discretionary authority in deciding not to refer the investigation panel¡¯s findings to the ASG/OHRM. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal and the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusal decisions are...