Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that the Applicant had the option of lodging a formal complaint of gender discrimination under ST/SGB/2008/5 but chose not to. However this does not prevent her from alleging, as she does, that the classification decision which she is challenging was ill-motivated by reason of gender discrimination. The Tribunal concluded that in determining whether the decision to abolish her post was ill-motivated it is competent to examine each of the Applicant¡¯s allegations against the relevant facts and circumstances.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that there is a difference between a contested administrative decision and the grounds relied on to impugn the decision and noted that neither of the two issues remanded for the consideration of the Tribunal was included in the list of administrative decisions which the Applicant requested the MEU to review. The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant raised the issue of the non-conversion of his temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment, he did so as a ground for contesting the specified decisions. He did not identify this issue as a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB showed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant¡¯s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant¡¯s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant¡¯s claim for...

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request was not properly considered in that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. In particular, no proper consideration was given to the individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception. Further, the reasoning supporting the decision was flawed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the granting of this exception would have been prejudicial to other staff. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD3,000 as compensation for loss of chance of...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.

The Tribunal concluded that there were procedural violations that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. The Tribunal ordered rescission of the decision or compensation of six months¡¯ net base salary in lieu of rescission. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal concluded that the investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment and the subsequent disciplinary process were in breach of the procedures required by ST/SGB/2008/5 and the IGO Guidelines for Conducting Investigations and that these procedural errors were sufficiently grave to render the...

Receivability ratione personae: The Tribunal is not competent to hear applications filed by a (former) individual contractor, who was not a staff member, a former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member; such an application is not receivable, ratione personae.Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation, when required, makes the...

Binding force of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgments: Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Their binding effect is not restricted to the orders provided under the ¡°Judgment¡± section, but also extends to the other operative paragraphs, which set out the major considerations for the determinations made. Articulation of the interest of the Organization and the criteria for conversion: The interest of the Organization is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of a staff member; however, as articulated in the relevant rules, it is ancillary to the...

Recalling the above-mentioned Appeals Tribunal¡¯s ruling and the requirements set therein for the reconsideration ordered by it, the Tribunal found that the impugned decisions were unlawful on several accounts, but primarily in that (a) the Applicants were not considered individually in light of their proficiencies, qualifications, competencies, conduct and transferrable skills, and (b) the decisions were based on the limited mandate of ICTY alone, to the exclusion of all other relevant factors. Accordingly, the Tribunal rescinded the impugned decisions, ordered the matter to be remanded once...

The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal¡¯s decision, and thus does not require clarification.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, although the JO was canceled and re-issued, there were still outstanding relief claims for adjudication, therefore, the application was not moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for removal of the Representative of the Secretary-General (¡°RSG¡±) for the Investments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF from the recruitment process, finding that this request pertained to the re-issued job opening. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request to refer the case for accountability and his claims for legal costs and moral damages. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision was made following the correct procedure and was based on well-founded evidence. Accordingly, the Application was dismissed. Denial of claim based on evidentiary grounds: The Tribunal observed that in assessing the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation, the principle issue for the ABCC was whether the injury resulted as a natural incident of performing duties on behalf of the United Nations. This was a question of fact to be established by evidence. The Tribunal held that the functions of ABCC include making recommendations on claims for...

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-457 and Nartey 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.