±¬ÁÏÍø

The Respondent submitted that the application was filed out of time as the Applicant had submitted it after 5 p.m. (closing hour of the New York Registry) on the last filing day. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Statute and the Rules of Procedure provide that applications are to be filed within 90 calendar days from the date of notification of the outcome of management evaluation, and, therefore, the applicant had until the expiration of the last calendar day of the filing period to file his application, regardless of the working hours of the Registry. Having done so, his application was receivable...

Effect of the breach of due process rights: The Tribunal found that while the Applicant had been denied some of his due process rights at the investigation stage, this breach was cured by the subsequent court proceedings. Further, the Tribunal held that the sanction of summary dismissal was fully justified in view of: (i) the status of the Applicant in the procurement process of ECA; (ii) the fact that he contracted with United Nations vendors without disclosing that fact in clear terms; and (iii) the fact that he was engaged to some extent in the activities of two other companies without...

Staff rule 12/3(b) ¨C exception to staff rules: The Tribunal held that under the unique circumstances of this case, that is, the requests from MINURSO recognizing the Applicant¡¯s suitability for the post and the Mission¡¯s dire operational needs, for the Respondent to have properly complied with staff rule 12.3(b), the Applicant¡¯s existing educational qualifications along with his professional qualifications and language skills should have been considered regardless of whether or not they were equivalent to a high school diploma.

Due Process: It is ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence that based on the staff rules there is no mandatory right to counsel for staff members who are undergoing interviews during the preliminary investigation of allegations for misconduct. Ultra vires: The author of the decision in this case was not the person who signed the 15 August 2011 dismissal letter but, as referred to in the letter, was the Under-Secretary-General for Management who took the decision on behalf of the Secretary-General. Pursuant to ST/AI 371/Amend.1, the decision-maker had the proper authority to do so and the decision was not ultra...

The Applicant contended that the transfer decision was unlawful in that it was arbitrary and adopted and implemented in breach of mandatory procedures and that ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD senior management acted in bad faith and with ulterior motives when doing so. The Respondent submitted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD senior management acted within its margin of discretion and on properly reasoned grounds based on the Applicant¡¯s skills and qualifications and the operational needs of ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD both in New York and Geneva. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided to the Applicant for his transfer were not justified by the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that there was a breach of the post selection process but that the Applicant did not suffer any damages as he did not meet one of the core competencies for the post. The Applicant has not put forward any evidence that the vitiated selection process with regard to the Post resulted in him suffering damages of any kind. Consequently, the application is granted with regard to the breach of ST/AI/2006/3 however no award of compensation is warranted.

The withdrawal request was filed more than two years after the initial application and prior to it the Applicant never requested a joinder of the present case and Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NY/2012/070. The Applicant did not present sufficient legal grounds to grant his request for joinder. Although the Tribunal no longer needs to make a determination on the merits, the present decision represents a final disposal of the matter and the Tribunal will consider it withdrawn in finality, including on the merits. The application is dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate. There are no exceptional...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that throughout the process, the Applicant remained an IFAD staff member hence his application was not receivable, ratione personae, and the Tribunal was not competent to consider the application.

The Tribunal has to strike a balance between the subjective and introspective feelings and perception of the aggrieved staff member with the application of reasonableness, rationality and objectivity in arriving at a fair and proper assessment of damage particularly involving the indefinable characteristics of what has been described in broad general terms as ¡°moral damage¡±.The Applicant distress and anxiety as a result of feeling extremely upset and not valued by the Organization cannot justifiably be placed at the top end of the scale of severity but rather at the lower end. This is even...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT for consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

Administrative decisions: What an administrative decision is or is not depends on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision has been made and the consequences of the decision, which dispels any notion that administrative decisions can be placed in any kind of legal strait jacket. Performance evaluation: Notwithstanding the bar to rebutting successful performance ratings in section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5, when a contested administrative decision is alleged to be in violation of the legal issuances of the Organization, it is actionable before the Tribunal in so far...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT for consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment was based solely on speculation and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that...

Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made any error of law or fact in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Mpacko¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision and did not amount to claims that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko¡¯s application for suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was one...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions were largely a reiteration of his arguments before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that there was no indication that the non-renewal decision or other incidents amounted to harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it concluded that the behaviours at stake, even when viewed together, did not point to any kind of prohibited conduct in the sense of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the advice given to the Appellant regarding uncertified sick leave was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the weight of the evidence, in that case, justified the decision taken by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, while acknowledging the importance of confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, that due process did not always require that a staff member defending himself against disciplinary action for summary dismissal had the right to confront and cross-examine his/her accusers. Under certain circumstances, denial of this right did not necessarily fatally flaw the entire process, so long as it was established to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s satisfaction that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/209 (on liability) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/062 (on relief). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence to support the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that, had the ±¬ÁÏÍø Staff Pension Committee (±¬ÁÏÍøSPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...