Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner¡¯s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant¡¯s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not received the fullest regard due to him as an internal candidate. The Tribunal found it appropriate in this case to award USD5,000 as compensation for the loss of opportunity and USD4,000 for moral damages. Related

The Tribunal had to determine whether a valid contract existed between the Applicant and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA, and, in the affirmative, whether the decision not to proceed with his on-boarding was illegal. The Tribunal considered that for the conditions of Gabaldon to apply, it is necessary that the offer of employment extended to a candidate be based on a selection decision made by the person disposing of the relevant delegated authority. Legal framework for delegation of authority to make the selection decision The Tribunal was of the view that at the time of the contested decision in accordance with the...

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...

The Tribunal was of the view that, essentially, the Applicant attempted to create an administrative decision in an attempt to contest it. Whilst the approach discloses some imagination on the part of the Applicant, the absence of a response by the High Commissioner to the Applicant¡¯s request does not create any direct legal consequence for him. Thus, there is no administrative decision, directly or by implication, that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider. The Applicant has no right to make an appeal in respect of matters to which he was not a party. Indeed, the Applicant did not...

Pursuant to ITC/EDB/2015/07, when a fact-finding panel is appointed, it shall investigate the complaint and ¡°prepare a detailed report, giving a full account of the facts that they have ascertained in the process and attaching documentary evidence¡± (sec. 5.18). The report shall be submitted to the Director, DSP, who will review it together with the related documentation and make a recommendation on the appropriate course of action to the Executive Director, ITC (see secs. 5.15, 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20). Seeking assistance from OIOS was a reasonable solution in the framework of ITC/EDB/2015/07...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant¡¯s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant¡¯s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the EOD date as...

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions was the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration. The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions is the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-; 684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration.; The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...