±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT nted that the Applicants¡¯ requests for management evaluation were submitted after the applicable deadline had already expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that, while the Applicants were active and diligent in bringing their concerns and grievances to higher authorities, these actions did not constitute sending a request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application for suspension of action was irreceivable as time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was irreceivable as time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit his request for management evaluation in due time. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

The contested decision was not, in itself, unfavourable to the Applicant since it did not prevent her from applying for the position again. The only decision which the Applicant would have had a legitimate interest in contesting, was the decision not to appoint her to the position she encumbered after its reclasification as Senior Career Management Assistant at the G-5 level. However, the Applicant did not contest this decision. The application was not receivable, since the Applicant did not have any legitimate interest in requesting the suspension of the decision to readvertise the position...

The Applicant requested the Tribunal to find that he suffered a prejudice equivalent to a 60% permanent loss of ENT functions and a 10% permanent loss of respiratory functions and to compensate him accordingly. He further requested the Tribunal to award him two years¡¯ net base salary as compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the Organization¡¯s failure to ensure the security and safety of its staff in Bagdad. The Tribunal found that the latter request was not receivable as it did not stem from a refusal decision by the Secretary-General, a decision which, in any event, should...

The Applicant has no interest in the maintenance of the proceedings, therefore the case is closed.

The Applicant contended that the Complainant¡¯s evidence contained numerous discrepancies and that the Complainant had exercised prevarication over her own statements and had displayed ambivalence over attempts to privately resolve the matter. The Applicant further contended that the finding of sexual harassment was based on the victim¡¯s own perception of the Applicant¡¯s actions. The Tribunal found that: based on the testimony and the entire file, the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were established; by any objective measure, the Applicant¡¯s conduct was prohibited by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF...

The initial fact-finding investigation was fundamentally flawed, unreliable and a sham. The failure to conduct a proper investigation but to resort to arm-chair analysis and conclusions based on the unreliable initial fact-finding investigation was not only useless but constituted a violation of the provisions of ST/Al/371 and the Applicant's due process rights. The Preliminary Investigation Report is characterized by a lack of direct evidence from the alleged victims and a heavy reliance on second hand evidence made by third party witnesses. The IGO/Investigation Unit failed to establish...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT thus granted leave for the Applicants¡¯ amended submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

The Tribunal finds that the selection process was flawed but that the Applicant has not established a causal link between the irregularity and the harm he claims to have suffered. Assessing the legality of the contested decision: When the Administration decides to use a specific procedure, it is bound to fully comply with this procedure. Thus, if the Administration had determined that applications for a vacant position would be assessed by a panel of five members, all five panel members should have actually participated in the assessment, and the failure to comply with the procedure resulted...