Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted despite reminders sent by the Staff Union, and once the Applicant realized that her application had not been processed, she still did not take any action to rectify the situation, and filed her application only nearly two years later. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the circumstances the Applicant described could not be considered ¡°beyond her control¡±, and rejected her request for a waiver of the time limit to file her application as being unfounded; hence the application was rejected as being time-barred.

He alleges that the decision was discriminatory, since based on his Kurdish ethnicity, and not based on reasons of force majeure, namely the earthquake that occurred in Van in October/November 2011 and which led to the temporary closure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office in Van. A hearing took place 0n 5 February 2013, during which the Applicant requested the Tribunal to call a witness to provide testimony concerning his claim that the decision was discriminatory. His request to have his witness heard was, however, not granted and Judge Cousin, in Judgment Kacan Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/025 of 19 February 2013, rejected...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s submission did not contain any dates for the impugned acts, nor any succinct statement of facts and reasons to contest such acts. It therefore dismissed the case for lack of substance and abandonment of proceedings.

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. C

The Applicant claimed that the Administration had implicitly accepted that he was suitable as he had not been excluded from the process at the stage when suitability was discussed. Hence, and given that the applicable Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR recruitment rules provide for priority consideration of internal candidates, no external candidates should have been even considered. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements nor the required professional experience for the post; as such, he was not eligible and, thus, not suitable for the post. Despite him being an...

It is not clear when exactly the decision was first notified to the Applicant. However, by email of 23 August 2013, a Senior Human Resources Officer clearly informed the Applicant of the decision and provided him with a comprehensive explanation on the rationale and the legal basis thereof. Thereafter, the Applicant contacted the Chief, HRMS, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, and the Director, Division of Administration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, seeking reconsideration of his request. By email of 25 November 2013, the Chief, HRMS, noted that the Applicant would soon be informed of the outcome of HRMS consideration of his case. Moreover, on...

In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)¡ªwhose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post¡ªwas being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)¡ªwhose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post¡ªwas being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

The Tribunal noted that the rebuttal process was still ongoing and that no administrative decision had yet been taken; it further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Rebuttal Policy was a regulatory instrument which was not of individual application and did not carry direct legal consequences on the Applicant; hence, these matters of the application were found to be irreceivable. Further, with regard to the Applicant having been denied access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ City Building on 13 February 2014, as well as the blocking of her emails after the end of her contract, the Tribunal noted that these events referred to...

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation at any point in time and also within the 60-day deadline under staff rule 11.2 upon the receipt of his pension entitlement letter, the application was not receivable.

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. The application was dismissed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application. Scope of judicial control: In appointment and promotion matters the Tribunal's role is limited to examining whether the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, whether the decision was taken without any bias against the Applicant, whether proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant material was taken into account. Elements prior to the selection process¡ªsuch as a restructuring exercise, the transfer of the selected candidate to a given post¡ªare normally not under consideration. Administration¡¯s discretion to define the...

When joining Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS in 2009, the Applicant¡¯s nationality for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...

The Tribunal noted that the content of the notes taken by the three panel members echoed similar answers given by the Applicant, which is a clear indication that they reflect the interview as it indeed happened and the answers provided by the Applicant. The Tribunal was also provided with the list of questions asked by the Panel during all interviews, and noted that the assertions made by the Applicant that she was not asked exactly those questions as they stood were unfounded and not corroborated by any evidence. It recalled that it was well within the discretionary power of the Assessment...

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant as a party cannot file a motion for intervention in her own case, and that her request for intervention by the Tribunal in the rebuttal process is not receivable ratione materiae, thus leaving no legal ground for an interim measure.

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.

The Tribunal noted that the HM has broad discretionary power to exercise a preliminary evaluation of the released applicants in order to establish the shortlist of the most qualified candidates to be invited for further assessment, and that the Tribunal will not easily interfere with the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in these matters and substitute its judgment for that of the competent decision maker. It further noted that the work experience requirement as listed in the vacancy announcement (VA) was already described in broad terms, thus opening the door to large discretion as to what...