Ãå±±½ûµØ

Having received no application by the deadline imposed, the undersigned Judge finds that this case is hereby closed.

The case cannot proceed without the active involvement of the applicant as the dominus litis. Accordingly, in the interests of ensuring that only current proceedings are maintained before the Tribunal, the application stands to be dismissed.

There may be cases that take longer to be heard by the UNDT and that this may provide a reason justifying compensation beyond the two-year limit. This was such a case. Compensation in lieu of rescission was set at two years and 2 months’ net-base salary. The Applicant’s claim for compensation was excessive. It equated to over 13 years of net-base salary plus payment of a number of entitlements. Apart from being well outside the scope of compensation that might properly be ordered by the Tribunal, the Applicant’s claim was predicated on the mistaken belief that but for the unlawful dismissal he...

An offer of employment and its acceptance amount to an agreement entailing rights for the Applicant: The contract by which an individual acquires staff member status can only be concluded validly on the date at which an official of the Organization signs the staff member’s letter of appointment. However, as the Appeals Tribunal held, “this does not mean that an offer of employment never produces any legal effects. Unconditional acceptance by a candidate of the conditions of the offer of an appointment before the issuance of a letter of employment can form a valid contract, provided the...

Applicant’s request for a swap of posts and for priority consideration: The Tribunal’s Statute does not authorize it to issue such orders to the Administration. Applicant’s request for an internal review of UNDSS: The Tribunal’s mandate is to enforce the individual rights of applicants; it does not behove the Tribunal to oblige the Administration to remedy problems it may identify in the functioning of the Organization. Applicant’s request for determination of individual responsibilities: Assuming the Applicant intended to rely on article 10.8 of the Tribunal’s Statute, such article allows the...

While the delay in the investigation process in this case constituted a breach of the requirements of promptness in ST/SGB/2005/8, the investigation of the Applicant’s complaint of prohibited conduct was ongoing as opposed to making no progress at all. The Respondent’s submission provided the Applicant with a full explanation of the reasons for the delays, which UNDT held was a sufficient remedy in all the circumstances. Moral Damages - Not every breach will give rise to an award of moral damages as a result of a breach of the procedural due process entitlements and that other entitlement to...

Receivability: The Tribunal held that the Applicants had standing pursuant to art. 2.1 of its Statute and found the applications receivable. Merits: Was the restructuring genuine? The Tribunal found that, although the retrenchment exercise resulted in the non-renewal of the Applicants’ appointments, the motivation for it was genuine as it implemented General Assembly resolution 66/264. Was the restructuring implemented through a fair and lawful process? Consultations: The Tribunal found that the Administration did not consult the staff or staff representatives about the posts to be abolished...

The Tribunal found that art. 17 does not refer to an evaluation by a medical practitioner selected by the Administration in cases of requests for reconsideration and that the Administration failed to follow the correct procedure when it did not convene a medical board. It further noted that the Administration could not, under art. 17, use an independent medical evaluation by a practitioner established in the framework of the initial assessment of a disability benefit under the Pension Fund Regulations. The Tribunal further stressed that the independent medical evaluation failed to address the...

Taking into consideration the Respondent’s response that the internal processes had not yet reached finality, the Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter until such time as all applicable and relevant procedures had been concluded. Consequently, the application was deemed premature and dismissed as irreceivable.

The fact-finding panel established that the allegations were well founded and the conduct in question amounted to possible misconduct. In the circumstances, the mandatory language of section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 required a referral to the ASG/OHRM for disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures. Failure to make such a referral on the part of the Head of Mission was an error of procedure which denied the Applicant his contractual right to be afforded the benefit and protection against prohibited conduct in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. The Administration...