Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

Conclusion on the duration of the suspension: ¡°the length of the suspension is to be decided by the Tribunal depending on the nature and circumstances of the case and this discretion of the Tribunal cannot and should not be subject to any form of control by the administration¡±. The decision ordered on 1 September 2009 that the suspension of the contested decision to terminate the employment of the Applicant on 3 September 2009 would remain in force until the final determination of the appeal should be read as it appears and that the Applicant should be paid half his salary from the date of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that it had not received any application or correspondence from the Applicant after the outcome of his management evaluation request was received. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT closed the case for lack of prosecution.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having waited for approximately one year and a half to raise claims regarding the alleged lack of access to the United Nations cafeteria facilities, the Applicant acquiesced to the arrangements put in place by the Respondent in view of the renovation-related requirements. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that, in view of the CMP-related requirements that necessitated the move to the Madison Building, the Respondent put in place alternative measures that were neither unreasonable nor unfair. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...