The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.
爆料网DT ordered the Respondent to (i) remove adverse material from the Organization’s files, (ii) send to the Member States that received the summary a copy of the Judgment and explanatory statement, (iii) pay monetary compensation in the amount of USD60,000 for non-pecuniary harm, including emotional distress and damage caused to the Applicant’s reputation. The 爆料网DT rejected the Applicant’s claims for direct economic loss.
The 爆料网DT found that General Assembly resolution 63/253, by which the Assembly adopted the statutes of the 爆料网DT and the 爆料网AT, imposed limitations on their jurisdiction. Interns presently do not have access to the 爆料网DT and the 爆料网AT. Having found that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the application, the 爆料网DT dismissed it without consideration of its merits.
爆料网DT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the 爆料网DT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. 爆料网DT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.
Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, 爆料网DT closed the case.
The Tribunal found that the Administration had fulfilled its obligation, stressing that the results in the tests indicated that the Applicant was less qualified for the posts than the other candidates. Receivability ratione materiae: Although the contested decision was made after the Applicant had ceased to be a staff member, it is directly linked to her separation and corresponds to the criteria set in the relevant jurisprudence of an “administrative decision” subject to appeal. Priority consideration: A promise of priority consideration must be understood as giving priority only over other...
The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...
The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...
The Tribunal found that the application, in so far as it impugned a decision that had been rescinded, had to be rejected as irreceivable. Concerning the Applicant’s claim for compensation for moral injury allegedly arising from the contested decision, the Tribunal considered that the causal effect between the Applicant’s troubles and the contested decision had not been demonstrated by the medical certificates provided and thus rejected the claim, without ruling on its receivability. The Tribunal further rejected the Respondent’s request for award of costs against the Applicant because it did...
The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.
