�山����

The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.

The Tribunal found that the Administration did not respect its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(i) and 9.6(f) to retain the Applicant and the Applicant’s correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G7 step 10) or at a lower level in UNHCR NY, or at her Professional level or lower in the parent Organization. The Tribunal granted the Applicant’s claim in part, rescinding the contested decision and ordering the Respondent to retain the Applicant with retroactive effect from 31 December 2016 in any current suitable available post(s), or in alternative, the...

Receivability before the UNCB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the UNCB, the relevant staff member is required (“shall”) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to UNCB: (a) to notify the United Nations authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...

Receivability ratione materiae: The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is contesting “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment” (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute).

The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...

There is no evidence on the record that the mandatory procedure established in secs. 9, 10, 15 and 16 of ST/AI/400 for separation by abandonment of post was followed in the Applicant’s case. The Administration did not act fairly and transparently with the Applicant. DSS lead the Applicant to believe that it was still considering granting him a SLWOP, while, at the same time, it recommended the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment due to his unauthorized absence on the other. That the non-renewal decision following the expiration of the Applicant’s contract, constitutes a separation...