±¬ÁÏÍø

The more serious an allegation against a staff member and attendant sanction, the higher the degree of proof required. Establishing criminal liability in investigations and judicial proceedings even in the context of a civil matter such as this must necessarily require that a standard higher than the ordinary one of a balance of probabilities must be attained. The OIOS Investigations Manual requires that investigators approach matters with an ¡°open mind¡± and emphasises that their task is to ¡°establish facts¡± and draw ¡°reasonable conclusions¡± from those facts. It is a ¡°dispassionate...

In accordance with former staff rule 111.2 (a) (i), the Applicant had only one month as of the receipt of the Secretary-General¡¯s reply to submit an appeal to the JAB. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant received the reply to her request for review on 31 January 2008 and that the JAB received her appeal only on 31 March 2008. Hence, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was late. The Tribunal examined the record of facts and concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed, which may justify a waiver of the time limits for the submission of the statement of appeal to the JAB...

Under the given circumstances, the application for an extension of time could not be considered as an application on the merits. No exceptional circumstances for an extension of time could be found. Lack of legal counsel normally does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Since the Applicant had learned one month before the end of the time limit that OSLA would not take her case, it was appropriate and reasonable for the Applicant to submit an application by herself within the time limits.

In cases deemed suitable to be decided by summary judgment, usually an oral hearing is not necessary. In non-disciplinary cases, it is a matter of judicial discretion to hold an oral hearing or to abstain from it. The mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending...

The mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending ±¬ÁÏÍøAT cases only. They do not include the power to revise ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgements. Cases closed by judgments of former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are res iudicata.

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/±¬ÁÏÍøON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant¡¯s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with the General Assembly¡¯s resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member.

While the change of the country of home leave referred to in ST/AI/367 is stated to be permanent, it is not unconditional, but subject to the Secretary-General being satisfied of the three specified conditions, which include its consistency with the purposes and intent of staff regulation 5.3.Former staff rule 105.3 gave internationally recruited staff the opportunity to take home leave to visit their home country at ±¬ÁÏÍø expense. Providing staff rule 105.3 (d) that the country of home leave shall be the country of the staff member¡¯s nationality, the logical corollary is that if a staff member...