51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal rejects the Applicant¡¯s request for a joinder of both cases and it dismisses this case as moot.

Language of examination: Pursuant to section 5.6 of ST/AI/2010/7, candidates may choose to take the oral examination in either English or French.Alternative compensation: Given that the placement of the Applicant on the roster of successful candidates does not guarantee that she will be selected for a position, and thus does not carry appointment or promotion, the Tribunal is not required to set an amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the specific performance ordered.Compensation and evidence of injury: While the Applicant seeks compensation for the...

Calculation of compensation. The Tribunal will determine the amount of income the Applicant is likely to have earned but for the impugned decision (pecuniary damages) and the extent of the non-pecuniary harm caused to by the decision to terminate her. Pecuniary damages. It is necessary to consider her fitness to return to work; the likely duration of the contract she could reasonably have expected to have been given; and the amount of work she would likely have been able to perform in view of her disability during the hypothetical contract period. Duration of a hypothetical contract period. It...

Jurisdiction: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the lawfulness of a decision made by ECOWAS.

Fixed-term appointments of short and long duration: The distinction made by UNHCR between fixed-term appointments of long duration¡ªi.e., fixed-term appointments of one year or more granted further to a competitive selection process, based on the advice of an Appointments, Postings and Promotions body¡ªand fixed-term appointments of short duration¡ªi.e., fixed-term appointments of less than a year granted without a competitive selection process and not endorsed by an Appointments, Postings and Promotions body¡ªhas its legal foundation in staff regulation 4.3 and staff rule 4.15 (and former staff...

Outcome: For Applicant (relief to follow).

The investigation against the Applicant lacked integrity and credibility. The investigator was incompetent, exhibited bias and lacked objectivity and fairness. The Investigator¡¯s note-taker was not only allowed to conduct part of the investigation by solely administering questions to two witnesses, she was also allowed the liberty of expressing her views on how some evidence she had elicited from a witness should not change impressions earlier formed. The investigation report was biased, unreliable and unfair. The characterisation of certain facts was done in a manner intended to draw only...

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Definition of harassment: Disagreements on work performance and other work-related issues are per se not excluded from the definition of harassment, and thus from the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5. Requirements to initiate an investigation and standard in appraising them: Section 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5 provides for two general criteria for the purpose of launching a fact-finding investigation: (1) that the formal...

Reasons for non-renewal: While the Administration is not bound to provide a staff member with the reasons for the non-renewal of his or her appointment, when the staff member contests before the Tribunal the legality of the non-renewal decision, holding that the motives behind were unlawful, the Administration must communicate to the Tribunal such motives and show they were real.

The main legal issues in this case are whether the Applicant and the Organization had entered into a contract and whether the Applicant is entitled to access to the system of justice of the United Nations. The Tribunal found that no binding contract of employment was concluded by the Applicant and the Organization. The Applicant was not a staff member at the time the decision was made not to select her for the vacancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this case. Outcome: The application was rejected.