The application is prima facie not receivable before the 爆料网 Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.
Outcome: The applicant succeeds. Compensation ordered for distress and loss of career development and associated benefits.
Outcome: Application dismissed, but award of a nominal compensation of USD 1,000 for procedural deficiencies in the selection process.
The applicant was entitled to be immediately informed or placed in the same position as he would have been had he been immediately informed. The failure to give timely notice, given the history of the case, gave rise to the legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed. Outcome: Held that the applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal of his contract and that decision not to renew was based on proper grounds and was not affected by irrelevant considerations. Held also that the applicant was entitled to be informed of the decision that he was regarded by the Organization as...
The applicant had a real and substantial chance of appointment of around 50 percent and that the appointment would have lasted until his 2010 retirement date. USD2,000 nominal compensation awarded for loss of the chance to work in New York.
Receivability: Although the applicant accepted the assignment, this does not mean that all decisions taken by the Administration with respect to the applicant must be deemed correct and lawful. The Organization’s decision to base its calculation of the applicant’s salary on her net income constitutes an administrative decision affecting her contractual right to proper remuneration and the case is therefore receivable. Salary calculation: ST/IC/2007/24 and ST/AI/2000/1 articulate that all G-level staff will be receiving an SPA to the P-2 level. Pursuant to provisional staff rule 3.10(d), the...
The facts alleged as justifying termination could not make the contract void but only voidable. The Administration is barred from arguing that there was no contract because it affirmed the contract when it was in full possession of the relevant facts by proceedings under staff regulation 9.1.Cancellation and effect of staff regulation 9.1: Under the general law the parties are bound by any condition in the contract relating to cancellation, rescission or repudiation. The only mode by which separation can be effected is pursuant to regulation 9.1 or pursuant to disciplinary procedures. These...
Once appeal is withdrawn there is no longer any matter for adjudication before the Tribunal.
The tendered reports of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) regarding home leave were admissible in the case, not only as reports of the opinions of the JIU but also as evidence of the facts stated in them, including as to the practices of the 爆料网. Because of the lack of any reference to a technical definition, the only viable approach was to give the term “full economy class” as ample a meaning as the phrase could reasonably bear and identify those fares which it logically and reasonably denotes. The IATA code was used as an identifier by 爆料网DP and 爆料网OPS, but the lump-sum received by the applicant...
Outcome: The application was held to be out of time. The Tribunal did not find this case to be exceptional. The application was dismissed.
