Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and not to redact the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied both Applications.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact or law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

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.

The Applicant, who had been separated on 31 December 2012, filed a report to OIOS in January 2013 referring to ¡°gross breaches of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ project management and procurement rules and regulations¡± (part A of the complaint), ¡°mal intended recruitment¡± (part B of the complaint) and ¡°misconduct of supervisor¡± (part C of the complaint). He appealed the OIOS decision not to launch an investigation into his report and ¡°not to provide him with the requisite information and to provide misleading information¡±. The Tribunal found that the application with respect to the decision not to investigate part A was...

The Tribunal concluded that the established facts did not legally amount to misconduct and that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore, a violation of her rights. Breadth of judicial review: When reviewing disciplinary matters, the role of the Tribunal is to look at all the facts, including the facts that came up during the investigation. Thus, the Tribunal is entitled to look at the manner in which the investigation was conducted; the facts gathered; the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence. ST/AI/371: The Tribunal noted that: (i)...

The Tribunal considered both applications receivable, and held that both the fact-finding panel and the ICTR Registrar misinterpreted the definition of harassment contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 by finding that an action which happens only at one instance, without any previous or subsequent similar behavior, does not amount to harassment, since harassment normally implies a series of incidents. The Tribunal recalled the definition of harassment and its constitutive elements, which may also include a one-off incident as affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal, and decided to rescind the decision to close...

The Tribunal found that the acts described under (1), (4) and (5) did not meet the definition of a challengeable administrative decision, whereas the Applicant¡¯s contention with regard to (2) was moot since her appointment had been extended by the Organization and she was not separated after 31 December 2013. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant¡¯s contention made under (3), as it considered that she did not fall under the categories of staff members for which the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Management has the authority of exceptional placement outside the normal selection...

While the delay in the investigation process in this case constituted a breach of the requirements of promptness in ST/SGB/2005/8, the investigation of the Applicant¡¯s complaint of prohibited conduct was ongoing as opposed to making no progress at all. The Respondent¡¯s submission provided the Applicant with a full explanation of the reasons for the delays, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held was a sufficient remedy in all the circumstances. Moral Damages - Not every breach will give rise to an award of moral damages as a result of a breach of the procedural due process entitlements and that other entitlement to...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s submission did not contain any dates for the impugned acts, nor any succinct statement of facts and reasons to contest such acts. It therefore dismissed the case for lack of substance and abandonment of proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the USG/DESA complied with ST/SGB/2008/5 by closing the case and providing the Applicant with a summary of the Investigation Panel¡¯s findings and conclusions. However the applicable mandatory time limits for assessing the complaint, appointing the panel and submitting the final investigation report were not respected. The Applicant is awarded a compensation in the total amount of USD2,300. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not gather sufficient evidence or erred in reaching its findings and conclusions presented in the report...

He alleges that the decision was discriminatory, since based on his Kurdish ethnicity, and not based on reasons of force majeure, namely the earthquake that occurred in Van in October/November 2011 and which led to the temporary closure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office in Van. A hearing took place 0n 5 February 2013, during which the Applicant requested the Tribunal to call a witness to provide testimony concerning his claim that the decision was discriminatory. His request to have his witness heard was, however, not granted and Judge Cousin, in Judgment Kacan Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/025 of 19 February 2013, rejected...

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Tribunal finds that the pertinent facts and the legal issues in the present cases are on all fours as those of the ICTY cases. As both parties have accepted the ratio decidendi of the decisions by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the ICTY cases, the Tribunal adopts the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s findings in Malmstr?m 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357 and remands the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAKRT conversion exercise to the ASG/OHRM for retroactive consideration of the suitability of each applicant within 90 days of the date of publication of this judgment in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Appeals Tribunal in the matter of Malmstr?m. Taking into...

The ST/SGB/2008/5 requirement for the administration to act promptly on complaints of prohibited activity was not observed in the case of the Applicant¡¯s complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT required more information on the present state of the process and held that this case was suitable to remand for institution or correction of the required procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT suspended the proceedings and orderd the Secretary-General to advise Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of the present position of the investivgation into the Applicant¡¯s complaint and whether he concurs with the remand of the case for institution and correction of the procedure under ST...

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. C

The Tribunal rescinded the decision finding that, in accordance with the plain meaning of ST/AI/2007/3, service with the United Nations Organization does not need to be continuous for a staff member to be eligible to receive ASHI. Staff Rule 4.17 is not applicable to the question of ASHI.

The Tribunal found that the Administration violated the rights of the Applicant by not including the PAD cycle year 2009 when making the termination decision in July 2010. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision and compensation for material damage equivalent to the loss of salary until her early retirement date on 1 May 2011. When terminating a contract for unsatisfactory service, the PAD reports to be taken into consideration must be the ones immediately preceding the non-renewal decision, so the PAD cycle years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for a termination decision made in...