Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

?tant donn¨¦ que le demandeur a retir¨¦ la demande, il n'y a plus de mati¨¨re pour juger et, par cons¨¦quent, le cas est ferm¨¦.

?tant donn¨¦ que le demandeur a retir¨¦ la demande, il n'y a plus de mati¨¨re pour juger et, par cons¨¦quent, le cas est ferm¨¦.

?tant donn¨¦ que le demandeur a retir¨¦ la demande, il n'y a plus de mati¨¨re pour juger et, par cons¨¦quent, le cas est ferm¨¦.

?tant donn¨¦ que le demandeur a retir¨¦ la demande, il n'y a plus de mati¨¨re pour juger et, par cons¨¦quent, le cas est ferm¨¦.

?tant donn¨¦ que le demandeur a retir¨¦ la demande, il n'y a plus de mati¨¨re pour juger et, par cons¨¦quent, le cas est ferm¨¦.

?tant donn¨¦ que le demandeur a retir¨¦ la demande, il n'y a plus de mati¨¨re pour juger et, par cons¨¦quent, le cas est ferm¨¦.

?tant donn¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant a retir¨¦ sa demande, il n'y a plus de question pour juger et donc le cas est ferm¨¦.

The Tribunal concludes that the Hiring Manager erred in finding that the selected candidate¡¯s Master¡¯s degree was related to, and therefore relevant for, any of the required specifically mentioned areas (computer science, information systems, mathematics, statistics) and wrongly determined that she fulfilled the educational requirement.; The Tribunal concludes that an additional criterion was used to evaluate only the selected candidate for the post, namely field experience, and that this criterion was not included in the Job Opening and the Hiring Manager erred in finding that the selected...

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew his application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

To be legally valid, a request for the withdrawal of an application must be formulated by the applicant and/or by his/her counsel and must consist of the unconditional expression of the applicant¡¯s free will to close his case before a judgment is issued. As the Applicant withdrew the matter in finality, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

General Assembly Resolution 61/264 (Liabilities and proposed funding for after-service health insurance), adopted on 4 April 2007, introduced a major change in relation to a fundamental and essential contractual right, namely the right to after-service health insurance. The Tribunal is of the view that General Assembly Resolution 61/264 relates to the fundamental human right of medical care/health, which includes the right to after-service health insurance, and should have been implemented through specific and clear staff rules adopted by the Secretary-General. However, due to an inherited...

The Tribunal found the application receivable since the contested decision was a new and separate aministrative decision distinct from any decisions issued by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Board in relation to their pensions. The Secretary-General decided not to grant the relief requested by the Applicant in the contested decision and thus this is a separate administrative decision.; There was no mention in the Applicants¡¯ acceptance of their appointments confirming that they were also provided with a copy of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, being therefore aware of their content and accepting their contracts to be...

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...

The Applicant¡¯s actions were reasonable and in accordance with her obligation to carefully verify the cost of administrative services, procurement and logistical support, since all the costs were supported by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI, in order to ensure that all the provisions of the OIOS Audit Manual were respected. There was no concrete negative result on the planned audit resulting from the annulment of the first MOP and that the Applicant¡¯s actions, which she was taking in her capacity as CMS in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI, consisting in a careful review of the alternative means to a face-to-face visit which could have resulted...