±¬ÁÏÍø

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations, but rather a member of ±¬ÁÏÍø police force (±¬ÁÏÍøPOL), which was an international law enforcement entity separately administered outside the ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretariat. The Tribunal therefore, held that in view of the established law, articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal was not competent to entertain it. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as non-receivable.

The Tribunal found that the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision but that the application was time-barred. Force of JAB conclusions and recommendations: The Tribunal is not bound by the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Appeals Board, which is only a consultative body. Tribunal¡¯s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion¡ªthat is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties¡ªwhether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass...

The case was closed after ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The case was closed after ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The case was closed after ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage.

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant conceded, in his closing submission, that the distribution and storage of pornographic material using the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP equipment constituted misconduct. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the characterization of this charge settled and did not go on to examine it. On due process, the Tribunal found that the investigation was hasty and afforded the; Applicant little opportunity to prepare for his case. On proportionality, the Tribunal held that the lack of due process shown on the part of the Respondent while investigating the Applicant must necessarily count to...