51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal has the power to interpret and identify the ¡°contested administrative decision¡± at stake, even if the party or parties have failed to do so. The Applicant was placed on SLWOP following her expulsion from Pakistan, the host country, due to her failure to timely submit the required documents for the renewal of her accreditation card. The Applicant, as an international staff member, should have known that a valid visa and accreditation card were conditions sine qua non for her to stay in Pakistan and be able to perform her professional duties. Since these conditions were not met and...

The decision to replace the Applicant as Departmental Focal Point for Women is reviewable because it affects her rights as a staff member under ST/SGB/2008/12. The Applicant's role as Departmental Focal Point for Women is not a staff representative. The Respondent did not show a conflict of interest between the Applicant¡¯s role as Departmental Focal Point for Women and her membership of the OHCHR Staff Committee. The High Commissioner had no authority under ST/SGB/2008/12 to remove the Applicant from her functions prior to the expiry of her mandate. Reinstatement of the Applicant was not...

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

As the remedy requested in the application had already been obtained, the Tribunal rejects the application as moot.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, including special consideration as an internal candidate on an abolished post but that the Applicant has failed to show that she was denied a fair chance during the selection process. Accordingly, the Tribunal DECIDES that the application is rejected in its entirety.

The past practice of the Organization in cases involving sexual harassment shows that disciplinary measures have been imposed at the strictest end of the spectrum, namely, separation from service or dismissal in accordance with staff rule 10.2(a), which has been affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in various judgments

The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel was properly constituted. The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel¡¯s review of the evidence complied with the applicable norms. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s medical condition was not an excuse for his reported poor performance. The Tribunal found that because the Applicant¡¯s report of abuse of authority against his supervisor was only filed after the performance appraisal was completed, it had no bearing on the appraisal.

Even though the relevant legal framework provides no guidance on the procedure to be followed for a transfer decision, the general principle of good faith and fair dealings dictates that a staff member should typically¡ªand at a minimum¡ªbe consulted about such transfer before the final decision is made and priorly be provided with a genuine opportunity to comment thereon --As a matter of good faith and fair dealings, an administrative decision that significantly alters the terms and conditions of a staff member¡¯s employment should be notified to this person in a formal written decision --It is...

The Tribunal dismissed the application for the following reasons: the facts had been established to the requisite standard of clear and convincing evidence because the Applicant failed to provide any evidence to contradict the Respondent¡¯s fundamental findings on the objective and subjective elements of the impugned conduct; the established facts qualified as misconduct because the Applicant failed to act with the diligence required of staff applying for education grant entitlements pursuant to ST/AI/2011/4; the sanction was not disproportionate because it was not the most severe sanction for...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable on two grounds: 1) Ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision has no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment, and 2) Because it is premature since at the time of the filing of the application, the relevant response period for the management evaluation was still running.