±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant¡¯s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant¡¯s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant¡¯s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had filed the application without awaiting a response to his request for management evaluation. In view of this, the Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it.

The Tribunal found that whereas ±¬ÁÏÍøSOS had called upon the Applicant to comply with the court order under the sanction of deductions, in fact, there were no deductions decided or effected. ±¬ÁÏÍøSOS¡¯s actions were only prefatory. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the application was not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant identified the contested decision as ¡°misconduct allegations¡± made against her. It was clear that the Administration was yet to take a decision whether or not to discipline her. Allegations of misconduct are only a prefatory act, from which no direct consequences stem for the terms of the Applicant¡¯s employment. Accordingly, the application was found not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision and it was dismissed.

The Administration has to prove their allegation of breaches of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal took the view that the case of misrepresentations had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. While the Applicant made several submissions in mitigation, she did not introduce any facts that constituted a denial of the breaches alleged. The Organization must maintain standards and be fair to all concerned. Consequently, if others were rejected for employment during the recruitment process because they were not qualified, then this should be the position across the board...