Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal dismissed the application as time-barred, as the Applicant failed to submit a timeous request for administrative review/management evaluation.

Application of ST/AI/2002/4 to field mission personnel: The Tribunal held that since ST/AI/2002/4 excludes field mission staff members, like the Applicant, from its ambit it could not be made applicable in the current matter in the absence of a formal decision by the Secretary-General to make the administrative instruction applicable to a staff member who is clearly excluded from its purview. The Tribunal also held that ST/AI/2002/4 could not be made applicable to the Applicant by invoking the best practices rule or argument. Implementation of selection decisions: The Tribunal concluded that...

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

There is no contestable administrative decision over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction, rather the Applicant is seeking to have the Tribunal substitute its view for that of the Arbitration Committee with regard to an internal Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU matter. The application is not receivable rationae materiae. As indicated in Kisambira Order No. 36 (NY/2011), the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters involving the internal affairs of a staff association. The application is not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the Applicant lacked legal standing, and that the second part of the application, while receivable, was unfounded, since the Secretary-General, who has the duty to facilitate the holding of the elections to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSCP, had no power, whatsoever, to interfere in the actual conduct and results of the elections.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided to join both cases and following a review of the procedure followed, found both decisions to be illegal. It ordered the rescission of both decisions and that a new decision be taken on the Applicant¡¯s complaint. It also considered that the irregularities committed resulted in undue delay in the handling of the complaint, which caused the Applicant moral harm warranting compensation of 8,000 Swiss francs.

Res judicata: The Tribunal held that a request made to or a decision of MEU does not operate as an express or disguised form of res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies as a rule to judicial decisions. Thus, the Tribunal is not bound by the finding of MEU except for the limitation put on its judicial powers by having a suspension of action, which is a judicial order, lapse following a finding of MEU, which is strictly an administrative decision. Priority consideration: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was found unsuitable for the post, the failure to consider his...

Request for management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that the Applicant had submitted a request to any entity or individual, including the Secretary-General, mandated to receive management evaluation requests as he did not provide any address, physical or electronic, of these entities or individuals. Nor did the Applicant provide any acknowledgment of receipt of any request for management evaluation by the Administration. The Tribunal subsequently held that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that he had indeed submitted a request for management evaluation of...

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...

The Tribunal found the Applicant¡¯s acceptance of the implementation of the agreement, his failure to raise the allegations of duress until well after two years after the mediation and his failure to proffer any supporting evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s claim of duress is devoid of any merit. Burden of proof - Where an Applicant alleges that an agreement was imposed upon him by duress, the burden lies on him or her to convince the Tribunal that such is the situation. Res Judicata - Where the subject matter of an application has been settled between parties...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...

With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...

Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the Applicants may have committed misconduct was manifestly unreasonable, arrived at in breach of due process, and was thus unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants¡¯ rights were not respected during the subsequent preliminary investigation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to conduct an investigation against the Applicants and the manner in which it was carried out was tainted by procedural irregularity and manifest unfairness. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants had engaged in protected activity, namely, reporting of...

The Applicant¡¯s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant¡¯s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.