Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

N/A

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not renewed because contrary to its claims, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL Administration did not follow proper procedures in determining whether he should be reassigned to the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant was not given full and fair consideration for the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law and that the guidance provided in the Secretary-General¡¯s report and the counsel of the General Assembly were ignored. Due process ¨C No comparative review or any review...

Starting date for time limits: Time limits must be counted from the moment all facts necessary to the commencement of the case were known, or at least should have reasonably been known .Publication of vacancies: The Administration is uncontestably required to announce existing and foreseeable vacancies to be filled. If more than one vacancy is to be advertised under the same JO, the JO in question needs to clearly indicate so. Non-retroactive application of the Statute¡¯s amendment: An amendment of the applicable rules cannot apply to an application filed prior to the entry into force of said...

The Tribunal concluded that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment (FTA) was unlawful because he was erroneously subjected to a recruitment and selection process after he had been successfully transitioned from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS as the sole candidate for the post of State Coordinator in Aweil. The Applicant was awarded compensation of one year¡¯s net base salary. Lateral transfer: The Tribunal noted the absence of important terms in the 19 December 2010 letter regarding the length of the assignment and reabsorption and concluded that the Applicant had, in fact, been laterally...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that there is a difference between a contested administrative decision and the grounds relied on to impugn the decision and noted that neither of the two issues remanded for the consideration of the Tribunal was included in the list of administrative decisions which the Applicant requested the MEU to review. The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant raised the issue of the non-conversion of his temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment, he did so as a ground for contesting the specified decisions. He did not identify this issue as a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB showed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant¡¯s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant¡¯s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant¡¯s claim for...

Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2015/129

Contingency of the Applicant¡¯s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...