51ÁÔÆæ

The actions taken by the Chief of the Regional Service Center Entebbe (C/RSCE) towards the Applicant amounted to a clear breach of the authority entrusted to her as C/RSCE. Her conduct fell squarely within the definition contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 which is ¡°the improper use of a position of influence, power or authority against another person¡±. It was reasonably inferred that the C/RSCE either deliberately or negligently ignored the principles governing the role of a manager or supervisor contained in the 2014 Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The Respondent failed to...

N/A

Receivability: the Applicant could not separately challenge the decisions to abolish his post and to create a new one. This does not mean that the Applicant, while contesting his separation from service, cannot raise arguments touching upon prefatory steps taken in the process leading to such decision and which contributed to it. The need for the Tribunal to go beyond the examination of the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is particularly acute in the present case, where the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s ARR(O) post and to create a new one cannot be dissociated from the...

Disclosure: The Respondent¡¯s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant¡¯s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...

The Tribunal stressed that the Applicant, contrary to his assertion, was not awarded compensation for loss of earnings. He was awarded material damages for his loss of opportunity.; The Tribunal reviewed the paragraph sought to be interpreted and was of the view that the Judgment was comprehensible and clear. The expression ¡°net base salary¡± was found to be clear and unambiguous and to refer to gross salary minus staff assessment. It does; not include a post adjustment component. The Tribunal also clearly did not provide for the taking into consideration of a possible step increment in the...

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance¡ªat least, as relevant to the present case¡ªthe Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a ¡°prescribed...

The Tribunal finds that the rescission of the contested decision would not fully restore the status quo ante and would not provide adequate relief to the Applicant as the UN Leaders Programme in Cape Town, South Africa, which the Applicant was registered for participation at, was presumably already held in September 2017. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that monetary compensation alone would not provide the Applicant with appropriate relief because of the nature of the non-pecuniary harm in this case, as well as harm not having been established or proved. Considering that the Director of Mission...

The Tribunal found that a witness¡¯ evidence on all matters totally lacked credibility and due to its conflicting nature was at best unreliable. The different versions of the facts were entirely contradictory. In such a situation the Tribunal has no course other than to totally exclude all evidence from the witness as lacking any probative value. The testimony presented and heard by the Tribunal does not prove, at the required standard, that the charge of collusion in fraud or gross negligence against the Applicant was made out. The Respondent had the burden of proof, which he did not discharge...

In the present case, in the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, he explicitly ¡°reserved¡± the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant¡¯s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...