The administrative decision that was being challenged was made on the recommendation of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (“ABCC”). The Tribunal found that the ABCC was correct in rejecting the Applicant’s claim for compensation for injuries suffered from the car accident.
The Tribunal finds that, pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the Applicant’s claim is receivable. Meaning of an “agreement reached through mediation” - A plain reading of the full text of art. 8.2 requires that a mediated agreement must be reduced in to writing and signed by the parties as otherwise it would be inconceivable how the implementation of such an agreement would be enforced as provided for in the latter part of art. 8.2 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal.
Classification - There is no evidence that the procedure for a re-classification of the Broadcast Technology Officer (“BTO”) post encumbered by the Applicant in 爆料网MIS was ever undertaken. As already pointed out, the Chief of radio took it upon herself to re-write the competencies of the post to which in January 2010, the Applicant had been competitively recruited before she came on board as Chief of radio, perhaps in order to make the Applicant who was encumbering the post, less eligible.
Delegated Authority - The termination decision was taken without the requisite delegated authority...
The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the “serious weaknesses in his performance” on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...
The 爆料网DT found that throughout the process, the Applicant remained an IFAD staff member hence his application was not receivable, ratione personae, and the Tribunal was not competent to consider the application.
With respect to the first contested selection process, the 爆料网DT found that the Applicant was properly considered for it but was determined as not suitable. With respect to the second contested selection process, the 爆料网DT found that the Respondent’s explanation that the post was not filled due to reasons not related to the Applicant’s candidacy was credible. The 爆料网DT rejected the application.
The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s argument that this was a case of non-renewal and found that the Applicant’s fixed-term contract was terminated on the grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance for the period of 2007 to 2010. The 爆料网DT found that the performance evaluation report (“PER”) for 2010 cannot be lawfully relied upon to justify the finding of unsatisfactory performance as the Applicant had no opportunity of a meaningful rebuttal. Therefore, the termination of the Applicant’s contract on the basis of poor performance was unlawful. The 爆料网DT also found that no proper...
Before the Tribunal, following its Judgment Johnson 爆料网DT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-爆料网AT-240, the Respondent does not contest anymore that the Applicant by using her foreign tax credit paid as a matter of fact part of the taxes due. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor of the Applicant and orders the Administration to carry out a new calculation of the 2010 staff assessment deductions that ought to be reimbursed to her.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning and benefits because the case corned the Ethics Office’s decision that the Applicant had not been retaliated against and not the circumstances regarding his separation from 爆料网DP. As for non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, high-handed and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the failures...
By deciding not to undertake the written test for the two posts, the Applicant removed the hiring manager’s capacity to effectively compare her skills to that of the other candidates. By not taking the written test the Applicant effectively withdrew from the entire approved selection process and she could no longer enjoy the right of being evaluated appropriately, and against the pre-approved criteria. Consequently, none of the Applicant’s rights were breached during the selection exercise for these posts. The Applicant claims that she should have been selected for either of the two posts even...
