ɫ��TV

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9(6)(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT found that the Applicant’s termination was unlawful because he did not receive proper...

The Tribunal found no evidence of an express promise in writing sufficient to support a legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment. The Tribunal also found that the reason given for the decision was sufficiently supported by the weight of the credible evidence. The Applicant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision was motivated by bias, prejudice or discrimination.

The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The rejection of creating a “separate case” for the Applicant’s motion for interim relief in Case No. UNDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal found the application not receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant’s receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation.

he Tribunal rescinded the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment and ordered the Respondent to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment retroactively from 7 June 2014. As the contested decision concerned a question of appointment, the Respondent was given the alternative option of paying the Applicant USD5,000 in compensation. The Applicant’s request for moral damages was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits.

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant’s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

The irregularities in the investigative process were egregious and warranted compensation. In addition, during the three years the investigation was delayed, the subject was no longer with the Organization, making it not possible to convene a new investigation.Relief: The Tribunal found the Applicant suffered emotional harm in having to prosecute his complaint for three years, harm to his reputation, and that such harm was demonstrated by the Applicant at trial and observed by the Judge as trier of fact. The UNDT found the decision of the responsible official to close the case was improper as...