The Tribunal noted that art. 12.3 of its Statute and art. 30 of its Rules of Procedure limit the scope of applications for interpretation to judgments. Neither the Tribunal’s Statute nor its Rules of Procedure contemplate applications for interpretation with respect to orders. The Tribunal therefore found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Tribunal examined the alleged procedural errors in the appointment of the investigation panel and the conduct of its investigation, before turning to examine the alleged errors in the making of the contested decision itself. Appointment of the panel The Tribunal found that the panel, appointed by a responsible official (the then Executive Director OAJ) who had a conflict of interest, was not constituted in accordance with sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It was illegal and void ab initio. A decision maker cannot, knowing the basis of a request for recusal, take important steps in a process such...
The Applicant stated in his application that he had not requested management evaluation of the impugned decision. The Applicant cannot now make such request, as it was required to be made 60 days after he was notified of the contested administrative decision (see staff rule 11.2 (c)). That is, 60 days after 18 April 2017, which was the date of the impugned decision. The time to request management review thus expired on 17 June 2017, over a year before the application was made (19 June 2018); Given the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the contested decision, the Tribunal had no...
The Applicant’s allegations of abuse of power arose from an understandable and reasonable suspicion but are not substantiated by the evidence heard by the Tribunal.; The re-advertisement of the contested position including a description of the operational context does not constitute a procedural flaw and the explanations provided are sufficient to conclude that it was not prompted by an ulterior motive.; The Applicant has not demonstrated that he was subjected to a detriment by any procedural or substantive error in respect of the first advertised JO. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s...
Was the Applicant’s candidature given full and fair consideration?; As an international multilateral organization with Member States having different descriptions in respect of academic qualifications, the Organization has a contractual obligation and a duty of care and due diligence towards its staff members to ensure that their candidatures are fairly and properly considered. The use of Anglo-Saxon terms to the apparent exclusion of the terminology used by other educational systems is not consistent with the proper exercise of that duty of care, or of the fair consideration of the Applicant...
Was the Applicant’s candidature given full and fair consideration?; As an international multilateral organization with Member States having different descriptions in respect of academic qualifications, the Organization has a contractual obligation and a duty of care and due diligence towards its staff members to ensure that their candidatures are fairly and properly considered. The use of Anglo-Saxon terms to the apparent exclusion of the terminology used by other educational systems is not consistent with the proper exercise of that duty of care, or of the fair consideration of the Applicant...
The Applicant, as an ad litem judge of the ICTY, is considered to be a “non-Secretariat United Nations officialâ€. It follows that the Applicant cannot be considered as a former United Nations staff member within the meaning of art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. Whilst being fully cognizant of the Applicant’s right to access to justice, the Tribunal is forced to apply its Statute, which prevents it from asserting jurisdiction over the application. As the Applicant does not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants described in art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute...
The Certificate of No Contest/Lump Sum that formalized the Applicant’s agreed separation has all the hallmarks of a binding agreement freely entered into by the Applicant for a consideration which he would not otherwise have been entitled to, and there is no suggestion by the Applicant that it was procured by duress, misrepresentation or other impermissible consideration or action.; Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant did not clearly identify the decision(s) he sought to contest, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s claims all relate to his period of employment with UNDP, which...
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed her application on the merits on 26 March 2018, namely on the same day on which she filed her two requests for management evaluation. The Tribunal recalled that according to art.8.1(d)(i)(b) of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear an application that is filed within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for management evaluation, which in the case at hand was 45 days. Having filed the application on the same day as the two requests for management evaluation, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear it...
Receivability; The Tribunal was satisfied that the object of the application was sufficiently clear and determined that it was two-folded finding that: a)On the one hand, the Applicant challenged the deduction of 25% of his salary implementing the alimony order of a Kazakh court; and; b)On the other hand, the Applicant contested the Administration’s refusal to recognize his concerned daughter (El.) as his dependent for the purpose of the United Nations’ child dependency benefits.; With respect to the refusal to recognize child El. as the Applicant’s dependent for the purpose of the United...
