Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with ST/AI/2018/1, eligibility of international staff members for education grant in respect of their children is to be determined by inter alia the conditions that: a) the child is in full-time attendance at an educational institution at the primary level or above, and b) the child is five years of age or older at the beginning of the academic year, or the child reaches the age of five within three months of the beginning of the school year. The Tribunal found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF correctly considered that at both periods for which the Applicant applied for...

The application in respect of the alleged non-compliance with the second agreement is premature, and as such not receivable, because the Applicant has not followed the mandatory dispute resolution process contained in said settlement agreement concluded in July 2017. The Applicant¡¯s multiples and generic complaints that the Organization has failed to follow its own rules and procedures, and her assertions regarding the conduct of her current and former reporting officers at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC do not constitute administrative decisions under Article 2(1)(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Tribunal DECIDES to...

The Applicant¡¯s claims of ulterior motive are unsubstantiated. The preferential consideration of female candidates only applies when women are under-represented according to sec. 3(c) of the memorandum from the Secretary-General of 11 February 2019 on the implementation of ST/AI/1999/9 (Special measures for the achievement of gender equality). The evidence shows, however, that women are not under-represented in the relevant unit. Therefore, the Applicant was not entitled to preferential consideration due to her gender. The Administration has shown that the applicable procedure was followed...

The Tribunal noted that the allegations of poor behaviour and the fact that those behaviours undermined the Applicant¡¯s capacity to discharge the responsibilities assigned to him in an effective manner were not included in his performance evaluations. The fact that the allegations later became the subject of the email to the USGs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Service and formed the basis for the decision to reassign the Applicant to another office showed that there was no transparency on the part of the Respondent in the matter. The Tribunal also...

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant¡¯s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of ¡°successfully meets expectations¡±. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant¡¯s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...

The Applicant argued that the decision to abolish his post and to terminate his fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper motives, but the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof. The Applicant applied for three posts at his level and the record showed that staff members holding continuing appointments from a closed peacekeeping mission were appointed to two posts. Since staff members holding continuing appointment have priority over staff members holding fixed-term appointment, the Administration¡¯s decision regarding these two posts was found to be lawful...

The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been selected by a Secretariat review body, which is a requirement under sec 2.1 of ST/SGB/2011/9. The Tribunal held that this was rational and consistent with General Assembly resolution 65/247 that for continuing appointments with the Secretariat, the requisite review be done by a Secretarit review body rather than other specialized review bodies. This condition was not satisfied in the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the impugned decision not to grant the Applicant the continuing appointment was correct. The application was thus dismissed.