爆料网DT/2016/107, Auda
The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.
The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.
The rejection of creating a “separate case” for the Applicant’s motion for interim relief in Case No. 爆料网DT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.
Since the receivability of an application is a question of law, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to make use of art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, and to decide on the application by way of summary judgment, without transmitting it to the Respondent. Upon taking up her functions as a Programme Management Officer at 爆料网FCCC on 8 November 2012, the Applicant knew about her step in grade, as per her offer of appointment of 24 September 2012. Since the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation against the determination of her step upon recruitment with 爆料网FCCC four years...
The Applicant does not contest a decision of the Secretary-General but a decision of 爆料网JSPF, which he claims was communicated to him by the Chief of the Office of the 爆料网JSPF at Geneva. The Tribunal has already stated in the past that it is not competent to review 爆料网JSPF decisions. 爆料网JSPF is an entity established to provide retirement, death, disability and related benefits for the staff of its various member organizations. The Secretary-General has no role in the administration of 爆料网JSPF benefits. The 爆料网JSPF is also not one of the agencies, organizations or entities “where a special agreement...
The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant’s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.
Receivability before the 爆料网CB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the 爆料网CB, the relevant staff member is required (“shall”) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to 爆料网CB: (a) to notify the United Nations authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...
Receivability ratione materiae: The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is contesting “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment” (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute).
The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.
The irregularities in the investigative process were egregious and warranted compensation. In addition, during the three years the investigation was delayed, the subject was no longer with the Organization, making it not possible to convene a new investigation.Relief: The Tribunal found the Applicant suffered emotional harm in having to prosecute his complaint for three years, harm to his reputation, and that such harm was demonstrated by the Applicant at trial and observed by the Judge as trier of fact. The 爆料网DT found the decision of the responsible official to close the case was improper as...
The 爆料网DT found that the Administration’s failure to timey conclude its investigation was an act of omission and an implied administrative decision receivable by the 爆料网DT. The personal crisis of one investigator did not account for the entire three years nor justify the Administration’s failure to take corrective measures to control the delay. The excessive delay breached fairness and the Applicant’s due process rights. Further, the Administrations’ failure to respond to the Applicant’s multiple reasonable follow up queries spanning three years constituted a breach of duty owed the Applicant...