51ÁÔÆæ

In accordance with staff rule 7.6(e), the Applicant¡¯s official departure date from Vienna was on Sunday, 14 March 2010, a non-working day in Vienna. Pursuant to section 5.2 of ST/AI/2006/4, had he departed on that date, he would not have been entitled to an additional day of annual leave to compensate for official travel on a non-working day. The fact that the Applicant chose to travel on a working day for reasons of personal convenience shall not have the effect of granting him a benefit to which he would not have been entitled had he travelled on the official date of travel.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

UNDT noted that the contested decision of 22 December 2010 was superseded by that of 31 March 2011 to allow the Applicant to exercise his right of rebuttal. UNDT held that the Applicant was moot and decided to close the case.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case that the decision was arguably unlawful or that he would suffer irreparable damage from its implementation.

Nature of misconduct charges: Although technically not criminal charges, a misconduct charge may carry overtones of criminal proceedings, where rights attendant to a fair trial attach. Equality of arms: equality of arms may be seen to be an indivisible element of a fair trial, requiring that a fair balance exist between parties involved in litigation. The principle warrants the assurance that each party to a dispute be able to prepare and present his or her case fully and adequately before the court.Outcome: The Tribunal found that the conditions of access proposed by the Respondent would...

Receivability: Only the appeal of the compensation amount was receivable¡ªthe Respondent had already conceded to the selection processes being flawed, the Applicant¡¯s return to her liened post was not an administrative decision in itself, and the Applicant had defined a fourth decision too vaguely to give it any meaning. Compliance with orders: Lacking a response from Counsel for the Applicant to a written order, the Tribunal determined that, due to his failure 51ÁÔÆæ the order, by default the Tribunal would deem that the Applicant had agreed with the Respondent¡¯s contentions regarding...

Submissions on new issues after the trial, re-opening of litigation: Parties will not be permitted to re-open substantive litigation after the Tribunal has already rendered its judgment on liability and is dealing solely with the issue of compensation.The Tribunal will take into account the staff member¡¯s earnings during the relevant period of time for the purpose of calculating compensation.Interest for lost salary: Lost salary should be subject to interest on the basis that it would have been paid in separate monthly installments, with interest on each installment calculated in accordance...

The Tribunal, noting that the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the time limit set out in former staff rule 111.2(a), focused solely on whether there were ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s mere assertion that she was unable to follow-up and was incapable of submitting a reasoned appeal as a result of psychological and professional stress was inadequate to warrant a waiver of the time limits. Based on the limited submissions of the Applicant, the Tribunal was unable to establish any causal relation between her state of...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.