51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that art. 17 does not refer to an evaluation by a medical practitioner selected by the Administration in cases of requests for reconsideration and that the Administration failed to follow the correct procedure when it did not convene a medical board. It further noted that the Administration could not, under art. 17, use an independent medical evaluation by a practitioner established in the framework of the initial assessment of a disability benefit under the Pension Fund Regulations. The Tribunal further stressed that the independent medical evaluation failed to address the...

The Tribunal found that the applications were receivable since the contested decisions produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal further found that the chosen period of retroactive application of one year was not only unlawful because it was based on a misconstruction and misapplication of staff rule 3.16 but it was manifestly unreasonable, irrational, and above all unjustifiably discriminatory. It did not amount to a proper exercise of administrative discretion and breached the fundamental principle of equal pay...

Receivability: The Tribunal held that the Applicants had standing pursuant to art. 2.1 of its Statute and found the applications receivable. Merits: Was the restructuring genuine? The Tribunal found that, although the retrenchment exercise resulted in the non-renewal of the Applicants¡¯ appointments, the motivation for it was genuine as it implemented General Assembly resolution 66/264. Was the restructuring implemented through a fair and lawful process? Consultations: The Tribunal found that the Administration did not consult the staff or staff representatives about the posts to be abolished...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s submission did not contain any dates for the impugned acts, nor any succinct statement of facts and reasons to contest such acts. It therefore dismissed the case for lack of substance and abandonment of proceedings.

The Tribunal considered both applications receivable, and held that both the fact-finding panel and the ICTR Registrar misinterpreted the definition of harassment contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 by finding that an action which happens only at one instance, without any previous or subsequent similar behavior, does not amount to harassment, since harassment normally implies a series of incidents. The Tribunal recalled the definition of harassment and its constitutive elements, which may also include a one-off incident as affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal, and decided to rescind the decision to close...

The Tribunal found that the acts described under (1), (4) and (5) did not meet the definition of a challengeable administrative decision, whereas the Applicant¡¯s contention with regard to (2) was moot since her appointment had been extended by the Organization and she was not separated after 31 December 2013. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant¡¯s contention made under (3), as it considered that she did not fall under the categories of staff members for which the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Management has the authority of exceptional placement outside the normal selection...

The Tribunal concluded that the established facts did not legally amount to misconduct and that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore, a violation of her rights. Breadth of judicial review: When reviewing disciplinary matters, the role of the Tribunal is to look at all the facts, including the facts that came up during the investigation. Thus, the Tribunal is entitled to look at the manner in which the investigation was conducted; the facts gathered; the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence. ST/AI/371: The Tribunal noted that: (i)...

The Applicant, who had been separated on 31 December 2012, filed a report to OIOS in January 2013 referring to ¡°gross breaches of UN project management and procurement rules and regulations¡± (part A of the complaint), ¡°mal intended recruitment¡± (part B of the complaint) and ¡°misconduct of supervisor¡± (part C of the complaint). He appealed the OIOS decision not to launch an investigation into his report and ¡°not to provide him with the requisite information and to provide misleading information¡±. The Tribunal found that the application with respect to the decision not to investigate part A was...

The UNDT noted despite reminders sent by the Staff Union, and once the Applicant realized that her application had not been processed, she still did not take any action to rectify the situation, and filed her application only nearly two years later. The UNDT found that the circumstances the Applicant described could not be considered ¡°beyond her control¡±, and rejected her request for a waiver of the time limit to file her application as being unfounded; hence the application was rejected as being time-barred.

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...