±¬ÁÏÍø

Under Sanwidi, it is not for the Tribunal to review the wisdom of the USG/DGACM¡¯s decision among other all viable options, but rather to assess the legality by which the decision was reached. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the decision to transfer the Applicant was not ¡°arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors¡± with reference to Chemingui, or that ¡°relevant matters [were] ignored and irrelevant matters considered¡± or the decision was ¡°absurd or perverse¡± as per Sanwidi. By itself, the Tribunal therefore finds no issue in the transfer decision...

The Tribunal finds that the mere fact that the Applicant was not invited to a competencybased interview following the written assessment did not give rise to an administrative decision, and that such a step of the selection process may only be challenged in the context of an application against a specific decision with clear and direct legal consequences on the Applicant, such as the final selection decision. The Tribunal has accepted in the past that certain intermediate decisions in a selection process¡ªsuch as when a candidate is found not suitable/ineligible for a given post¡ª constitute...

The Tribunal finds that the mere fact that the Applicant was not invited to a competencybased interview following the written assessment did not give rise to an administrative decision, and that such a step of the selection process may only be challenged in the context of an application against a specific decision with clear and direct legal consequences on the Applicant, such as the final selection decision. The Tribunal has accepted in the past that certain intermediate decisions in a selection process¡ªsuch as when a candidate is found not suitable/ineligible for a given post¡ª constitute...

With regard to GJO No. 425940, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified on 19 February 2014 that his application had been unsuccessful. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision until over four years later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim relating to GJO No. 425940 was not receivable ratione materiae and it was dismissed. For GJO No. 76109, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that the Administration did not give his candidacy fair and adequate...

The first contested decision ¨C the ICSC refusal to address the Applicant¡¯s request for payment of compensation for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the ISCS Chair is moot because the current Chair of the ICSC eventually responded to the Applicant¡¯s request. The Chair of the ICSC is not staff of the Secretariat and therefore falls outside the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5, or the Staff Regulations and Rules. The ICSC decision not to compensate the Applicant for the sexual harassment she was subjected to by the former Chair (second contested decision) is not attributable to the Secretary...

The Tribunal found that neither JA nor TA were refugees, or beneficiaries of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR assistance or fell within the prohibitions stipulated in staff rule 1.2(e). The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations made against a staff member are conclusive evidence that the staff member was responsible for the reputational damage caused thereby to the Organization. The Applicant had no control over what the media chose to report. Hence, ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR basing its decision on these facts was unlawful as they were extraneous to the case at hand and irrelevant. The...

These positions to which the Applicant applied required specialized work experience which the Applicant did not have. The Administration reasonably concluded that the Applicant did not meet the minimum work experience required for these respective positions. Potential vacant posts likely to be created by an upcoming restructuring plan are not considered available posts. The Administration lawfully did not consider the Applicant for any potential vacant post. The Administration reviewed the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the positions he applied for and lawfully determined that he did not meet the...

The Applicant¡¯s professional counsel, by his own admission, was well aware that the Applicant would not be able to meet the filing deadline as he encountered difficulties in getting instructions from her. Contrary to his assertion, it was his professional duty to promptly notify the Tribunal and request relief. However, he failed not only to promptly inform the Tribunal of his client¡¯s inability to meet the deadline but also to provide any reason for it in the application itself. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances prevented the Applicant from timely...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had imposed a harsher sanction on the Applicant than was necessary. The sanction was found to be disproportionate and manifestly abusive in relation to the circumstances faced by the Applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to replace the original disciplinary sanction for another one with less gravity, namely-separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had shown and the Applicant had not disputed through clear and convincing evidence that all relevant regulations, rules, administrative issuances and policies were complied with in considering the Applicant¡¯s medical entitlements. There was no administrative decision carrying direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of appointment to adjudicate on, since subsequent to filing the application on 24 September 2018, the Applicant¡¯s claim were fully satisfied in November 2019. The Respondent having rescinded its decision...