±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that the application, even if it was diligently filed by the Applicant, was premature as the Applicant¡¯s reconsideration request was still pending before the Secretary-General.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s review of OLA¡¯s letter. The Tribunal found that OLA¡¯s letter of 11 August 2015 is not an administrative decision in the form of a settlement provided by the Administration based on OLA¡¯s preliminary review of the Applicant¡¯s claim for gross negligence pursuant to art. 3 of ST/SGB/230 or in a form of an offer to submit the claim to arbitration pursuant to art. 6 from ST/SGB/230. Even if OLA¡¯s letter of 11 August 2015 were to be considered, as submitted by the Applicant, as a response to his ¡°notice of arbitration¡±, the Tribunal would have no competence to review it. As clearly results...

Receivability ¨CThe Applicant¡¯s patience in waiting for the Secretary-General to decide on when to grant him appropriate remedies cannot be used against him. It is not in contention that as soon as he was informed that the Secretary-General had decided that the appropriate remedies he was promised meant no remedies at all, the Applicant approached the Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s claims in regard to the other administrative decisions of tampering with a published vacancy announcement and the membership of the former incumbent of the position on the interview panel which were affirmed in management...

Standard of proof in disciplinary cases - In disciplinary proceedings it is well settled now that the evidence must be clear and convincing and that would include identification evidence. Evidence of misconduct must be clear and convincing. Findings of fact by the trial judge - As a trier of facts, a first instance judge has the means and power to assess the veracity and accuracy of a witness. The findings of fact of a trial judge should rarely be reversed on appeal unless the findings are so perverse that no reasonable person would have come to the conclusions reached on the facts by the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not renewed because contrary to its claims, the ±¬ÁÏÍøMIL Administration did not follow proper procedures in determining whether he should be reassigned to the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant was not given full and fair consideration for the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law and that the guidance provided in the Secretary-General¡¯s report and the counsel of the General Assembly were ignored. Due process ¨C No comparative review or any review...

After conducting case management and issuing a number of orders, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant had identified four decisions and/or issues for consideration: (a) a decision in 2010 in which she was denied the full period of annual leave that she had requested; (b) an implied decision or decisions not to provide her with a job description in a timely manner; (c) an implied decision or decisions not to reduce her workload despite awareness on the part of management that she was suffering from health issues; and (d) whether she should be awarded compensation for the effect of the...

Management evaluation: the requirement of filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an application before the Tribunal has been invariably upheld by the Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to either waive the deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation with the MEU or make any exception to it; therefore, the Tribunal is incompetent to review decisions which have not been subjected to management evaluation. Technical bodies: as per staff rule 11.2(b), technical bodies are determined by the Secretary-General. Absent such determination...

N/A

he Tribunal rescinded the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment and ordered the Respondent to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment retroactively from 7 June 2014. As the contested decision concerned a question of appointment, the Respondent was given the alternative option of paying the Applicant USD5,000 in compensation. The Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages was rejected.

Strict enforcement of time limits: time limits for formal contestation of a decision are to be enforced strictly. Exceptional cases (in relation to the waiver of time limits): according to art. 8.3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for a limited period ¡°only in exceptional cases¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly found that only circumstances beyond the applicant¡¯s control that prevented him or her from exercising the right of appeal in a timely manner may be considered exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the statutory time limits.

The Tribunal found that her separation upon the expiry of her contract was not the subject matter of the Application before it. Damages for moral injury ¨C As held by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in Asariotis, damages for moral injury may arise in two situations: first, for a fundamental breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract, and/or from a breach of procedural due process entitlements; secondly, where the employee has produced evidence of harm, stress or anxiety caused by the breach.

The Tribunal concluded that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment (FTA) was unlawful because he was erroneously subjected to a recruitment and selection process after he had been successfully transitioned from ±¬ÁÏÍøMIS to ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS as the sole candidate for the post of State Coordinator in Aweil. The Applicant was awarded compensation of one year¡¯s net base salary. Lateral transfer: The Tribunal noted the absence of important terms in the 19 December 2010 letter regarding the length of the assignment and reabsorption and concluded that the Applicant had, in fact, been laterally...

Starting date for time limits: Time limits must be counted from the moment all facts necessary to the commencement of the case were known, or at least should have reasonably been known .Publication of vacancies: The Administration is uncontestably required to announce existing and foreseeable vacancies to be filled. If more than one vacancy is to be advertised under the same JO, the JO in question needs to clearly indicate so. Non-retroactive application of the Statute¡¯s amendment: An amendment of the applicable rules cannot apply to an application filed prior to the entry into force of said...

he second case was filed to address the Respondent¡¯s contention that the first case was not receivable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was not required to seek management evaluation since the impugned decision followed the completion of a disciplinary process. Pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the Applicant was required to file his application with the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of notification of the contested decision. The Applicant, however, first sought management evaluation and subsequently missed the 90-day deadline for filing with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found...

Administrative decision: Advice from OAIS about where to submit a complaint that does not fall within the scope of its authority does not produce any direct legal consequences to the legal order and, therefore, does not constitute an administrative decision.In the absence of a specific time limit in the applicable rules and regulations for finalizing PAD rebuttals, a former staff member has no right to compel the Administration to investigate misconduct for a delay in the completion of a PAD rebuttal process; therefore, the absence of a response to such request does not constitute an implied...

Non-renewal: A non-renewal decision can be taken on the basis of a projected reduction of workload; in assessing future workload, the Administration necessarily has to make some prognosis, on the basis of the elements available at the time of the contested decision. Factual developments relating to the future workload after the date of the decision have to remain out of consideration, and do not have an impact on the legality of the decision under review. Extraneous factors: The burden of proof with respect to extraneous considerations falls on the Applicant. Ultra vires: A non-renewal...

Non-renewal: A non-renewal decision can be based on a mere reduction of work, based on a workload prognosis¡ªmade at the time of the decision. This can lead to a situation where a regular budget post remains vacant without actually being abolished. There is no legal obligation for the Administration to renew a staff member¡¯s FTA based solely on the fact that the respective post is funded. On the contrary, it may be in the best interest of the Organization to save money instead of using available resources at all cost. In assessing future workload, the Administration necessarily has to make some...

Formal requirements: It is justified to request a complainant to conform to the requirements of format and content of secs. 5.11 and 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. However, as a matter of fairness, the same degree of exigency must be required from the different complainants. Purpose and material scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated to address very specific kinds of conduct, defined in its sec. 1. Re-characterizing allegations of a different nature and having them investigated under the bulletin is a misuse of the procedure. Investigating a complaint and its counter-complaint together...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

Receivability: The filing of a recourse application as per ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Promotions Policy suspends the time limit to submit a request for management evaluation of a decision not to grant promotion only if it is timely done; otherwise, the deadline for requesting management evaluation runs from the date of notification of the initial decision, unless an extension of time is granted or the deadline is waived by the competent authority.