The Tribunal’s findings were that the Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given that the Applicant failed to abide by staff regulation 1.2 (b) and former staff rule 110.1, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.
The charge relating to the unauthorized use of the 爆料网ON ID card to gain access to the 爆料网 premises in Nairobi was properly brought. However, before a conclusion was reached, the decision maker was required not simply to ask whether, as a question of fact, tax and duty free purchases were made by the staff member but also whether by doing so the staff member had the mens rea to abuse 爆料网 privileges and immunities or whether he genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds that he was entitled to have access to the 爆料网 Commissary. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal found that on the balance of...
Break in service: The Tribunal has not found a policy on mandatory breaks in service and no document has been produced recording it. The respondent has failed to demonstrate a consistent application of the practice of enforced separation between temporary contracts. Further, there was a deliberate delay in progressing the appointment of the applicant which was to her detriment. Compensation: The applicant is to be placed in the position as if there had been no such break in service in May 2008. The manner in which the applicant was treated, aggravated by the exercise of an abuse of power...
In accordance with article 18, paragraph 2, of its rules of procedure, the Tribunal may order the production of evidence for either party and the parties have to provide such evidence, even though they consider it to be confidential. According to article 18, paragraph 4, of its rules of procedure, it falls upon the Tribunal to assess the confidentiality of the evidence and, if it finds the evidence to be confidential, it is the Tribunal’s responsibility to ensure that measures are taken to preserve such confidentiality. In the instant case, the Tribunal did not use the confidential documents...
At the time the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had already reviewed its initial decision to grant the Applicant a three-month extension and extended him for an additional nine-month period. The Tribunal determined that since the contested decision was de facto rescinded by the Administration before the application was filed with the Tribunal, the application is not receivable. Had the Administration rescinded its decision after the filing of the application, the application would have become moot during the proceedings and the Tribunal would have...
There was substantial impact on the applicant’s life and work, which was both foreseeable and a direct result of the breach. Injury to career prospects: It is reasonable to infer that the applicant will probably be promoted in due course and that this prospect has been delayed by his failure to achieve the position in Geneva. This is economic loss. The court proceedings were burdensome, stressful, and time consuming, but this matter is inextricably involved with the denial, up to the judgment, of the applicant’s rights, and will be sufficiently recompensed as part of the award for the breach...
The Tribunal takes note that the Applicant has failed to file his application within the deadline given to him in the Tribunal’s Order of 22 January 2010 and even beyond. It also notes that the Applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation as to why he did not comply with the Order of the Tribunal. By his behaviour and attitude the Applicant has displayed a singular blatant ignorance of a court order. His conduct is one of contempt of the Tribunal. This attitude does not befit persons who like the Applicant come to seek justice and a vindication of their rights before the Tribunal.
The Applicant’s request for review is time-barred as far as the decision not to renew her appointment is concerned. As regards both the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract and the alleged mishandling of her visa request (even assuming that such mishandling could be linked to an administrative decision subject to appeal), the Applicant, in the absence of a response from the Secretary-General within two months of her request for review, had one month to file an appeal with the JAB. The appeal is time-barred as well. Given that the time limits prescribed in staff rule 111.2 (a) were not...
In accordance with former staff rule 111.2 (a) (i), the Applicant had only one month as of the receipt of the Secretary-General’s reply to submit an appeal to the JAB. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant received the reply to her request for review on 31 January 2008 and that the JAB received her appeal only on 31 March 2008. Hence, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant’s appeal was late. The Tribunal examined the record of facts and concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed, which may justify a waiver of the time limits for the submission of the statement of appeal to the JAB...
No exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a) could be found. The Applicant having served for long time in the Organization, she had ample opportunity to become familiar with the applicable rules. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the applicant to be acquainted with the rules on time limits. The Applicant was not induced into error by MEU response as to the outcome she could expect from a procedure before the Tribunal. The transition to the new justice system cannot be said to have affected the Applicant’s ability to timely...
