±¬ÁÏÍø

This application for suspension of action is dismissed upon withdrawal by the Applicant.

The Tribunal found that the application was irreceivable as time-barred; it was also without merit because the alleged conflict of interest was not deemed to exist. Independent status: Bodies endowed with an independent status are integrated in the structure of the Organization and, whilst they may not receive instructions from their chain of command in performing the tasks entrusted to them, they are not entirely detached from the Secretary-General¡¯s authority. Administrative decisions: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the legality of acts other than administrative decisions. Redress...

The Tribunal cannot review the Alleged Harassment complaint as management evaluation is a prerequisite to an application before the Tribunal¡ªsee Planas 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-049 and Syed 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-061. The Tribunal does not have the power to suspend or waive time limits¡ªsee Costa 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-036. In this case there was no request for, or grant of an extension by the Secretary General. Therefore, regardless of whether there were attempts at informal resolution (or, indeed any other circumstance or factor), the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the First Decision is out of time as it was filed more than 60 days after...

The timely rescission of the publication of the Letter negated any potential harm or breach of the Applicant¡¯s rights that may have occurred in the present case.; The Administration took the implicit decision of not providing the Applicant with his requested remedy to the publication of the Letter.; For the Tribunal to grant the Applicant unfettered access to iSeek for the; purpose of publishing a rebuttal letter without having it reviewed by the iSeek team to make sure that it conforms with its publishing guidelines would be akin to the Tribunal ordering a potential breach of the iSeek...

Whether the decision being contested is the one taken by OHRM to separate the Applicant from service, or the earlier decision taken by ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC, or the pending decision of the ABCC, there is currently no case that is pending management evaluation. There is also no substantive application before the Tribunal in relation to which this request for interim relief could be considered. In any event, art. 10.2 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute provides that a suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision may not be granted in cases of termination, which includes separation...

Terms of settlement have been agreed between the parties. They have confirmed that the said terms have been fully executed and that there are no outstanding claims arising from the present case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the contested decision was based on improperly imposed conditions not stipulated under staff rule 4.18 and thus lacked proper legal basis. Further, it was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the contested decision was unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, had the discretion been properly exercised on the stipulated conditions, the Applicant would have been reinstated in service and shall be treated as such. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered rescission of the contested decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered that the Applicant be deemed as reinstated in service and that proper adjustments be made...

The application is filed within the statutory deadline and is therefore receivable.

The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant¡¯s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...