51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.

The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant¡¯s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.

Was the decision based on properly promulgated legal instruments or other issuances?

The primary and binding legal instrument is ST/SGB/2009/10, to be read together with the Guidelines made thereunder. It is not for the decision-makers to operate outside the strict terms of the primary legal instrument by explicit or tacit agreement to adopt a rule of practice or procedure that is not in strict compliance with ST/SGB/2009/10 and its guidance. Above all, those making recommendations or decisions must be guided by the Organization¡¯s policies as reflected in properly promulgated administrative...

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

The Tribunal deemed that it was established that in October 2013, the Applicant, a staff member of UNHCR in Turkey, had travelled to Syria in her capacity as a member of a delegation of the Women International Democratic Federation, responding to an invitation received from the Syrian Arab Republic General Women Union. During that visit, she attended a meeting with the President of Syria during which she handed him a flag with the words ¡°Do not yield¡± in Turkish. A picture of that encounter was taken and published in a Turkish online newspaper. The Tribunal considered that in view of the clear...

The Application was rejected on the merits.

Hence, the pre-requisite of seeking management evaluation prior to filing an application before the Tribunal was not met. While, in an earlier management evaluation, the Applicant contested the decision not to advertise any posts of Russian Translator, P-3 at UNON, even assuming that this management evaluation covered the decision impugned in the application, the latter was not filed within the statutory 90-day time limit as from the receipt of the reply to this earlier management evaluation request.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed 51ÁÔÆæ ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

UNICEF had made the Applicant applying and being selected to a UNICEF vacant post a condition for his return. The Tribunal found that by imposing such a condition to the Applicant¡¯s return, UNICEF violated the terms of his secondment, under which the Applicant retained ¡°rights to employment¡± in the releasing organization (i.e., UNICEF). Compensation in lieu of rescission: although the chain of events lead to ending the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment with UNICEF, this was not the direct consequence of the contested decision, i.e., conditioning the Applicant¡¯s return to UNICEF service after...

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.