51ÁÔÆæ

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1 (a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot compel the Organization to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaints against ECA¡¯s Senior Management as pleaded by the Applicant. An investigation is part of a disciplinary procedure as described at paragraph 2 of ST/AI/371 ¨C Revised Disciplinary Measures and Procedures. The Applicant has recourse under the Staff Regulations and Rules to pursue his grievances in relation to his allegations of abuse of authority by ECA Management.

Paragraph 19 of the APPC Procedural Regulations of June 2006 states that only staff members who have served for a minimum of one year in their post are eligible to apply for vacancies. The Applicant claims that the contested decision dated 29 February 2008 to appoint 12 staff members to vacant posts affects her rights since these vacant posts were not advertised. However, in accordance with the above-mentioned provision, at the time the 12 staff members were appointed, the Applicant was not eligible to any of these posts as she had been appointed only in September 2007. Therefore, without it...

Paragraph 19 of the APPC Procedural Regulations of June 2006 states that only staff members who have served for a minimum of one year in their post are eligible to apply for vacancies.The Applicant claims that the contested decision dated 29 February 2008 to appoint 12 staff members to vacant posts affects his rights since these vacant posts were not advertised. However, in accordance with the above-mentioned provision, at the time the 12 staff members were appointed, the Applicant was not eligible to any of these posts as he had been appointed only in September 2007. Therefore, without it...

A re-trial would be unduly wasteful of time and resources. The Respondent was adequately represented especially as no oral evidence was tendered by the Applicant and the issue of cross- examining a witness did not arise. Full equality was accorded the parties in the circumstances. The onus lies on the Respondent to show that the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3 had been complied with in this case in order to prove that the Applicant was fully, fairly and properly considered. This onus has not been discharged.The Applicant¡¯s candidature was not considered at the 15-day mark as required by the...

In light of the Applicant¡¯s withdrawal of his application for suspension of action and subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there is no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution, without determination of its merits, and the case is closed.

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The Applicant asserts, inter alia, that she was harassed and discriminated against and that her performance evaluation process was not in accordance with the established procedures. UNDT found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was based on lawful grounds and was not vitiated by any improper considerations or procedural errors. UNDT found, however, that there was an unreasonable delay in the rebuttal process. Although this delay had no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision, it caused emotional distress to the Applicant, for which she shall be compensated...

Reassignments: Staff regulation 1.2 grants broad discretion to the Secretary-General in making reassignment decisions. However, such discretionary power is not unfettered: it is subject to respect for due process, and the absence of bias, discrimination, arbitrariness, or other extraneous motivations. While section 2.4 ST/AI/2006/3.Rev.1 envisages only lateral transfers to vacant posts, it does not preclude other kinds of transfer to be lawfully made. The decision contested in the present case does not contravene the said section 2.4, but falls beyond this provision¡¯s purview and, therefore...

The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. UNDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. UNDT found that the Applicant...

Inexplicably, the JAB in its report sua sponte addressed, as a formal issue before it, the handling of a privileged and confidential letter (¡°Confidential Letter¡±) that the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had sent to the Under-Secretary-General for OIOS (¡°USG¡±) regarding the pending JAB litigation. The JAB refused the Applicant¡¯s non-selection claim, but found that the Respondent owed the Applicant an apology for forwarding the Confidential Letter to some staff members. The Respondent subsequently affirmed the non-selection decision, but rejected the issuance of an apology regarding the distribution of...