Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the applications irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant¡¯s application for the three P-3 posts was not fully and fairly considered, since the Hiring Manager did not personally evaluate her candidacy based on the information included in the PHP and e-PAS reports, while formally endorsing the decision of the CSS/OSU not to shortlist the Applicant. The Applicant¡¯s e-PAS reports contained essential information regarding the Applicant¡¯s fulfilment of the highly desirable requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal concludes that it has no competence to order the Secretary-General to assess the way the...

On receivability: Applying the test of Gabaldon, even though all the conditions of staff rule 4.8 had not been fulfilled, the Applicant had locus standi and was legitimately entitled to similar rights as those of staff members and that the Organization must be regarded as having extended to her the protection of its administration of justice system. She held a valid contract, the scope of which must be determined when other issues are considered. The reach and application of Gabaldon is indeed limited and does not entitle the Applicant to take full benefit of the Staff Regulations regarding...

Noting that there is nothing in the strict interpretation of section 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 to exclude a series of discrete acts performed by more than a single individual from constituting prohibited conduct for which the Organization bears responsibility, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of institutionally enabled, or tolerated, harassment did not relate to one off incidents. Under ST/SGB/2008/5, the ES¡¯s duty was to examine the complaint in its entirety to see whether it raised issues of prohibited conduct to which the Applicant may have still been suffering from. Instead...

The decision to refuse further medical evacuation was first notified to the Applicant on 15 July 2014 but he did not request management evaluation until 29 January 2017 after later requests for medical evacuation had been refused. The application was not receivable because subsequent reiterations of the same decision did not have the effect of resetting the clock for management evaluation.

The Tribunal examined the alleged procedural errors in the appointment of the investigation panel and the conduct of its investigation, before turning to examine the alleged errors in the making of the contested decision itself. Appointment of the panel The Tribunal found that the panel, appointed by a responsible official (the then Executive Director OAJ) who had a conflict of interest, was not constituted in accordance with sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It was illegal and void ab initio. A decision maker cannot, knowing the basis of a request for recusal, take important steps in a process such...

The Tribunal examined the alleged procedural errors in the appointment of the investigation panel and the conduct of its investigation, before turning to examine the alleged errors in the making of the contested decision itself.; Appointment of the panel; The Tribunal found that the panel, appointed by a responsible official (the then Executive Director OAJ) who had a conflict of interest, was not constituted in accordance with sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It was illegal and void ab initio. A decision maker cannot, knowing the basis of a request for recusal, take important steps in a process...

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the applications irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal rejected the application noting that the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Respondent has executed the Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/185.

With respect to the content of judgment Lloret Alca?iz et al., the applicants raised the following question to the Tribunal: Is it the intention of the Tribunal in this Judgment for the Applicants to continue to receive a ¡°dependency rate of salary¡± after their first dependent child ceases to be dependent and up until their youngest dependent child is no longer recognized as a dependent?; The Tribunal found that the Applicants asked it to go beyond the conclusions of its Judgment in raising ex post facto a question about the interpretation of the former regime, which was not raised nor...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner¡¯s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant¡¯s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March...

The Applicant did not show that the findings of the Rebuttal Panel together with her final performance appraisal resulted in an administrative decision to her detriment. Although the delay in finalizing the Rebuttal Panel Report was far in excess of the period contemplated under ST/AI/2010/5, the delay did not constitute an error of procedure in light of the reasons advanced by the Respondent. In accordance with section 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5, it was mandatory for the Administration to place the report of the Rebuttal Panel on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and that there was no exercise...

Since a PIP was not put in place prior to the expiry of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, she could not rely on section 10.5 of ST/AI/2010/5 for the renewal of her contract. The Administration extended the Applicant¡¯s contract several times despite her refusal to accept the offers of contract extension. These extensions were deemed contrary to a strict application of the requirements of section 4.4 of ST/AI 2013/1 and inconsistent with administrative regularity. However, MONUSCO continued to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract in the hope of persuading her to cooperate with the PIP. It was...

Administrative leave; The Tribunal noted that the decision letter of 27 July 2017 conveyed that the decision was based on the reputational risk to the Organization in light of the allegations against the Applicant, relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an underage girl, and on the basis of the available evidence and findings of the investigation report.; The Tribunal was satisfied that the sensitive nature of the allegations, which were sustained by some evidence, justified the Administration¡¯s decision, in its exercise of discretion, to put the Applicant on administrative leave, in...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 20 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 21 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...

The parties disagreed as to the date the contested decision was notified to the Applicant and the Tribunal had to determine which of the communications triggered the running of the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation.; It was uncontested by the Applicant that he was informed, unequivocally, by his manager on 28 October 2015, that his contract was going to be terminated effective 31 January 2016 and that he was being placed on special leave with full pay as of 1 November 2015. He was also unequivocally informed on that date that he would no longer have access to his emails and...

From both the testimonies and the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, it found as established that the dire financial situation at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP KCO, as it related to the ¡°11888 fund¡±, was the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant did not produce any evidence allowing the Tribunal to conclude that at the time of the contested decision, the ¡°11888 fund¡± still had funds to allow the Organization to renew her contract. While it is not contested that an incident occurred during the mission to Rwanda in 2014, the Tribunal does not find that the testimonies and...