±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal reviewed the present application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis and ratione personae. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant clearly indicated in her application that the contested decision dated back to 2010 and, in such circumstances, her application was not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the...

The Respondent requested the Tribunal to redact the names of the victim and her family from ¡°any public filings in this case¡±. The Tribunal considered the request reasonable and decided to refrain from using the victim¡¯s name as well as the name of the members of her family in its judgment to preserve their privacy and to protect them from any negative repercussion. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Since the Applicant had been working for the Organization since...

The various justifications given by the Administration suffered from inconsistencies and inaccuracies and not fully supported by the facts. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the decision was ill-motivated as alleged. The decision is unlawful. Reinstatement is not possible because the relevant office is closed. The Applicant did not prove that the harm was directly caused by the contested decision and therefore rejects his claim for moral damages.

As the Applicant had effectively withdrawn his request for management evaluation, the application was not receivable ratione materiae under staff 11.2(a). Related

Rescission of the contested non-renewal decision In its Judgment Quatrini ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2020/043, the Tribunal found that the Organization failed to justify the non-renewal of the contract of the Applicant and that the decision to separate him from service was therefore flawed. The Tribunal further held, comparing the P-5 level position formerly encumbered by the Applicant with the one advertised in the Global Mechanism, that the two positions are essentially the same, the Tribunal thus drew the inference that the position still exists. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the most...

The Tribunal found that the provided reason for not renewing the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not properly based on facts and, consequently, that the contested decision was unlawful. To determine remedies, through a subsequent judgment, the Tribunal instructed the parties to file final submissions on the matter taking into account its findings in the instant Judgment.

The Tribunal held that regarding the Applicant¡¯s requests for compensation for time spent since she separated from the Organisation, salary arrears, interest of 15% paid on compensation and salary arrears and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medical bills these claims were not awarded by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment and such could not be claimed as part of the execution. As such, all the four claims were rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the only issue relevant to the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment that was still pending was the interest due on awards granted therein. Accordingly...

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant¡¯s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Related

The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the Tribunal. Thus management evaluation was a prerequisite. The application was filed out of time because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response as required by art. 8.1(i)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute.