The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has been consistently dilatory in the pursuit of this claim. Leaving the matter open on the court’s docket would be inappropriate in view of the Applicant’s clear lack of interest in pursuing this claim.
With regard to due process requirements, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been afforded a hearing in regard to the charges alleged against him. Whilst the language used in the last paragraph of the USG’s letter dated 8 November 2005 seemed to suggest that if the JDC made a request for the physical presence of the Applicant in Geneva such a request would be acceded to, the Tribunal was of the view that the JDC did not indicate in clear terms that the presence of the Applicant would be essential, the word used in Rule 29 and the USG’s request did not violate the Applicant’s rights to...
i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/爆料网ON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...
The Tribunal dealt with the notion of “exceptional circumstances” in the light of the jurisprudence of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal, the 爆料网DT and the 爆料网 Appeals Tribunal. It reaffirmed that “exceptional circumstances” are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. The Tribunal considered whether it could find any exceptional circumstances, as alleged by the Applicant that could justify a waiver of the receivability requirements, pursuant to staff rule 111.2 (f) of ST/SGB/1999/5 of 3 June 1999. Initially the Applicant submitted before the JAB that the fact that...
This Application is not receivable and is additionally frivolous and vexatious.
The early termination of his contract was not based on a proper or lawful evaluation of the Applicant’s performance. In the absence of a comprehensive and fair performance evaluation done at the time, the reasons given by the Respondent cannot be regarded as cogent or reliable because the Applicant did not have an opportunity to refute, answer or rebut them. They therefore represent just one side of the story and, however strongly felt by the Respondent, are not a reliable basis for a lawful termination of the contract before its expiry date. This is not a question of improper motivation...
Whether the decision was prejudiced, arbitrary and based on abuse of authority and improper motives: Apart from one letter in which he complained bitterly about the leadership of the CMS, the Applicant did not lead any evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal found this claim to be without merit Whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy/legitimate expectation of renewal: Pursuant to ST/AI/404, mission detail, as any other assignment in the Organization, is at the discretion of the Secretary-General. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Respondent were not of such a...
The Tribunal sought to find whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver of the receivability requirements. In the light of the jurisprudence of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal, the 爆料网DT reaffirmed that “exceptional circumstances” are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. In the present matter, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had totally failed to establish that he was hampered by exceptional circumstances to pursue his case with due diligence. The Tribunal found that the matter was time-barred.
The Respondent rested his case on the evidence of a witness on whom anonymity was conferred during the investigation and who was not called at the hearing. From the statements made by the witness during the investigation the Tribunal found that his/her testimony was fraught with irregularities and inconsistencies and could not be acted upon. The Tribunal also found that failure to call the witness for cross examination was a breach of the due process requirement. The Tribunal also held that when anonymity is conferred on a witness during the investigation, the Tribunal is not bound by this and...
Noting the agreement between the Parties, and the Applicant’s notice of withdrawal, the Tribunal ordered that the matter be dismissed.
