±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

The Tribunal deemed that it was established that in October 2013, the Applicant, a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR in Turkey, had travelled to Syria in her capacity as a member of a delegation of the Women International Democratic Federation, responding to an invitation received from the Syrian Arab Republic General Women Union. During that visit, she attended a meeting with the President of Syria during which she handed him a flag with the words ¡°Do not yield¡± in Turkish. A picture of that encounter was taken and published in a Turkish online newspaper. The Tribunal considered that in view of the clear...

The Application was rejected on the merits.

Hence, the pre-requisite of seeking management evaluation prior to filing an application before the Tribunal was not met. While, in an earlier management evaluation, the Applicant contested the decision not to advertise any posts of Russian Translator, P-3 at ±¬ÁÏÍøON, even assuming that this management evaluation covered the decision impugned in the application, the latter was not filed within the statutory 90-day time limit as from the receipt of the reply to this earlier management evaluation request.

Ultra vires - Whereas procedures and guidelines may be developed by the Organisation to implement promulgated issuances, it is unreasonable for said guidelines to be so far reaching as to effectively add new provisions to the overarching issuance. This would amount to a usurpation of the legislative powers of the General Assembly.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.

±¬ÁÏÍøICEF had made the Applicant applying and being selected to a ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF vacant post a condition for his return. The Tribunal found that by imposing such a condition to the Applicant¡¯s return, ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF violated the terms of his secondment, under which the Applicant retained ¡°rights to employment¡± in the releasing organization (i.e., ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF). Compensation in lieu of rescission: although the chain of events lead to ending the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment with ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF, this was not the direct consequence of the contested decision, i.e., conditioning the Applicant¡¯s return to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF service after...

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had discharged the burden of proof in showing that her separation from the Organization was motivated by extraneous factors and improper motives. Extraneous factors ¨C There was increased animosity between the Applicant and her various supervisors both in Bor and later when she was transferred to Wau. Consequently, the Tribunal found that bias against the Applicant existed on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS management. Due Process/ Procedural flaw ¨C The responsible officials at the mission all defied the procedures provided for by ST/AI/371 for dealing with reports of...