±¬ÁÏÍø

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant¡¯s previous contractual...

The Tribunal found that the Administration properly qualified the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards the Complainants as sexual harassment, but found the sanction disproportionate to the offence. The Tribunal is of the view that, while in the assessment of accusations of harassment the test focuses on the conduct itself - and requires an objective examination as to whether it could be expected or perceived to cause offence or humiliation to a reasonable person, being not necessary instead to establish that the alleged offender was ill-intended (see Belkahbbaz ±¬ÁÏÍøAT-2018-873, para. 76) -, the lack of...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any alleged error by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in considering the merits was moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was open to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

In judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050/Corr. 1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal that centred on whether the Appellant should be awarded enhanced compensation of three months¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make a reversible error in declining to award compensation for moral suffering. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the case was distinguishable from Mebtouche (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/039), where the Applicant, Mr Mebtouche, had already retired and had no chance of being promoted, therefore enhanced compensation was justified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that enhanced compensation could not be awarded to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...