±¬ÁÏÍø

1) With regard to Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The only decision under Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent¡¯s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant¡¯s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.

Under sec. 3.2 of ST/SB/2008/5 and as a matter of good faith and fair dealing, by failing/omitting to review and consider an Applicant¡¯s complaint and informing him of the result, the Administration rendered an appealable administrative decision in accordance with art. 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s consistent jurisprudence. The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that ±¬ÁÏÍøISFA¡¯s decision of 17 April 2016 was of a general kind pursuant to the restructuring and was not a decision of individual application to the detriment of the Applicant. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s claim that the contested decision was motivated by abuse of power, ill will directed against his own interests or any other improper motive, the Tribunal held that the the Applicant had provided no arguable case to support his position.

The Tribunal held that the evidence before it showed that the Applicant had signed a contract with ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS governed by the terms and conditions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS Individual Contractor Agreement which, among others, provided that the Applicant had a status of an independent contractor, and was not to be regarded, for any purpose, as a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS or any other entity of the United Nations. Therefore, the Applicant, not being a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS or any other entity of the United Nations, had no locus standi before the Tribunal. As a result, the application was struck out as being not...

In circumstances where an applicant is not provided with the whole of the documentation involved in a matter sought to be brought before the Tribunal, it is essential that as material is provided to an applicant there be a right to amend an application. To not allow the amendment of the application would not ¡°do justice to the parties¡± or ¡°lead to the fair disposal of the case¡±. Clearly, not permitting an amendment of the application when the true state of affairs is revealed for the first time by the Respondent would offend the inherent obligations of the Tribunal consistent with the...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the Secretary-General. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...