爆料网

English

Showing 2601 - 2610 of 4321
爆料网DT/2011/021, Osterrieder

ST/IC/2006/60, the legality of which has not been contested by the Applicant, is clear as far as the rates for relocation grant are concerned. It stipulates on the one hand that for single staff members “separating from service following appointments or assignments of one year or more”, the applicable rate is USD10,000, and on the other hand that “for assignments of less than one year” the rate is USD1,200. It is clear that the Applicant, who was assigned to Geneva for six months only because he decided to resign, falls within the latter category. The Administration could thus rely on this...

爆料网DT/2011/022, Edwards

The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months’ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...

爆料网DT/2011/023, Sahel

The Tribunal cannot review the Alleged Harassment complaint as management evaluation is a prerequisite to an application before the Tribunal—see Planas 2010-爆料网AT-049 and Syed 2010-爆料网AT-061. The Tribunal does not have the power to suspend or waive time limits—see Costa 2010-爆料网AT-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...

爆料网DT/2011/006, Kunanayakam

The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...

爆料网DT/2011/007, Ndjadi

The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant 爆料网DP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...