±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the application.

In making the final decision on the Applicants¡¯ complaint, the then Director General, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application in its entirety.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD¡¯s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the ±¬ÁÏÍø General Assembly. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant had no authority to demand a performance guarantee from an NGO Coordinator and that the Applicant¡¯s intention was not to keep a performance guarantee, but rather to obtain a bribe from the NGO Coordinator. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it was not convinced of the probative value of the alleged handwritten note which the Applicant claimed was evidence of his intention to request a performance guarantee. On the issue of the Applicant returning the alleged performance guarantee, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the real intention of the Applicant and the Senior Programme Assistant was to avoid the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily decided not to admit the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordinator¡¯s testimony into evidence, holding that it was not required because the case record already contained relevant evidence in relation to the facts in which he had been involved. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the evidence showed that neither the Applicant nor the Senior Programme Officer were involved in the implementation of the project. In fact, a Senior Reintegration Officer had overall responsibility for it as he requested an operational advance and, consequently, was personally responsible for the funds. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis¡± (see Manco 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...

The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed ¡°after¡± she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR¡¯s comments in relation to the Applicant¡¯s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three ¡°off the record¡± emails with the journalist and it was the...

The Respondent conceded that the proper procedure in the assessment of the Applicant¡¯s complaint was not followed because she was not interviewed by OIAI as required by section 5.14 of CF/EXD/2012-007. The Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in this case not only constitutes a serious breach of the applicable framework but it also violates the Applicant¡¯s due process rights as a complainant. The complainant¡¯s interview is a mandatory and essential step in the preliminary assessment of the complaint as it prompts the staff member to clarify the allegations, to ensure all available...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, including special consideration as an internal candidate on an abolished post but that the Applicant has failed to show that she was denied a fair chance during the selection process. Accordingly, the Tribunal DECIDES that the application is rejected in its entirety.

The Tribunal has the power to interpret and identify the ¡°contested administrative decision¡± at stake, even if the party or parties have failed to do so. The Applicant was placed on SLWOP following her expulsion from Pakistan, the host country, due to her failure to timely submit the required documents for the renewal of her accreditation card. The Applicant, as an international staff member, should have known that a valid visa and accreditation card were conditions sine qua non for her to stay in Pakistan and be able to perform her professional duties. Since these conditions were not met and...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable on two grounds: 1) Ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision has no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment, and 2) Because it is premature since at the time of the filing of the application, the relevant response period for the management evaluation was still running.

Receivability The Tribunal considered that the Applicant was not challenging individual non-selection decisions directly but rather challenged the Administration¡¯s alleged failure to give her priority consideration for vacant posts before terminating her fixed-term appointment, which is required under staff rule 9.6(e) (see Timothy). Therefore, the Tribunal found the application receivable and examined the merits of the case. Restructuring process At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant worked as Humanitarian Affairs Officer (HAO) at the P-4 level. The Tribunal noted that, in OCHA...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant acted diligently with respect to the filing of his request for management evaluation and met the deadlines set forth by the MEU. This is particularly relevant as the reason for the elapsed time to file such request was the attempt at informal resolution of the dispute under the auspices of the ±¬ÁÏÍøOMS. The application is receivable ratione materiae. As the parties entered mediation before the Applicant¡¯s filing of a request for management evaluation, the applicable provision for the calculation of the 90-day deadline to file an application is art. 8.1...

The Applicant, a ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR staff member in between assignments (¡°SIBA¡±), was placed on SLWOP after having exhausted a nine-month period on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±). The Tribunal reviewed the legality of the contested decision in light of the arguments put forward by the Applicant. Is the contested decision consistent with staff rule 5.3? The Tribunal found that the circumstances for the placement of SIBAs on SLWOP are per se exceptional and, consequently, the text of para. 139 of the RAAI is consistent with staff rule 5.3. Staff rule 5.3(f) sets the general principle that a staff...

The issue at stake is whether the non-selection decisions were lawful and, if not, what remedies are to be awarded. The scope of the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction in selection and appointment matters is twofold: 1) to evaluate if the Administration has followed the pre-established procedures and staff members were given full and fair consideration and 2) to examine if the decision is not blatantly unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. The Tribunal finds that the fact that the Administration decided to consider the result of the LABEL test when examining applications for the job opening does not amount...

The Tribunal rejects the Applicant¡¯s argument related to the alleged lack of mens rea. It recalls that this is an administrative proceeding and not a criminal case. In the context of administrative/disciplinary proceedings, only the objective facts are essential to determine if misconduct has occurred. The ¡°underlying intentions¡± of the subject can only be taken into account as mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In the case at hand, the cumulative application of two sanctions of a financial nature (loss of five steps in grade and a fine of three months net base salary) is an excessive...

Receivability The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was out of time. Thus, the application concerning the Applicant¡¯s separation from service due to post abolition is not receivable ratione materiae. It is clear from the evidence on file that the application concerning the Applicant¡¯s separation from service due to post abolition is time-barred and, consequently, not receivable ratione temporis. Non selection for the re-advertised post of Fundraising Officer The burden to prove unlawfulness in relation to non-selection lays with the Applicant as per the consistent internal case law...