±¬ÁÏÍø

This judgment is confined to whether the applicant should have access to the report. The applicant was ordered be given access to the panel¡¯s report, subject to an undertaking of confidentiality.

The Applicant was not considered in accordance with ST/AI/2006/3 as was his legal right.

The filing of the incomplete statement of appeal by 31 July 2008 complied with the time limit specified by the Staff Rules. The failure to file the full statement of appeal within one month (as was required by the JAB rules) may (not must) lead to implied abandonment in the absence of explanation and permits restoration of the appeal if an adequate explanation is provided; this does not require exceptional circumstances. The delay was explained by the need to obtain the investigative report and its annexures lying at the centre of the case. What constitutes an adequate explanation will vary...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered the applicant to show cause why his appeal against dismissal should not be struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to respond. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the order to show cause was properly served on the applicant and that SIU¡¯s investigation produced clear evidence establishing the facts supporting the charges. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that there was no procedural irregularity, improper motive, or abuse of power, and that the sanction of summary dismissal was a fair and proportionate response. Outcome: The application was struck out in its...

The applicant was given the opportunity of providing arguments and submissions which may tend to show that he had an arguable case. He has failed to do so. There was ample evidence before the Secretary-General to support a finding of serious misconduct. The internal disciplinary investigations complied with the principles of natural justice. There were no procedural irregularities in the investigation and the sanction of summarily dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.

Decisions made prior to 2 April 2009 are not excluded from being challenged before the Dispute Tribunal. Outcome: The application was held to be receivable and the motion to dismiss was denied. The instant case was also held to be exceptional, deserving of the waiver and extension of the time limits. The staff member was granted two weeks to file and serve a revised application.

The Dispute Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for the filing of applications imposed by the Statute and Rules of Procedure, but may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning management evaluation because this is the prerogative of the Secretary-General.The drafters of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal intended that all applications to the Tribunal would be subject to the rules under which this Tribunal operates. Therefore, pursuant to Article 8.3 of the Statute, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the deadlines for the filing of requests for...

The notes taken by the panel contain material that is or may well be relevant to the applicant¡¯s case and therefore they should be provided to the applicant. Outcome: The notes taken by the panel to be provided to the applicant, subject to the applicant making an appropriate confidentiality undertaking.

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article...

Outcome: In the exercise of its discretion under article 35 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that it would be in the interests of justice to grant the respondent an extension of time for the filing of his reply until 21 December 2009, in order to allow the Tribunal to proceed with this matter without any further delays.