Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the non-selection decision was superseded and rendered moot by the Administration's subsequent rescission of the decision, which ended the selection process without anyone being selected for the position. It concluded that, from that moment, the non-selection decision ceased to have any legal effect and was no longer a live issue on which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had jurisdiction to pass judgment on.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further affirmed that it was entirely within the Administration¡¯s authority to rescind the non-selection decision given the procedural irregularities...

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relied on the Appellant¡¯s statement to ascertain that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

On consideration of the totality of the applicant¡¯s particular situation, the Dispute Tribunal held it was an exceptional case with exceptional reasons justifying an extension of time. An extension of time to file was granted.

The Tribunal cannot allow the Applicant¡¯s claim to continue to ¡°hang like the sword of Damocles¡± over the efficient operations of the Organization. The Applicant had failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect of his Application. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s responses show disregard for the directions from the Tribunal. The Applicant has not actively or diligently pursued his case.

The Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2.1 (a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal took the view that the decision taken by the administration to appoint an ad interim DCPM and to reallocate responsibilities and duties pursuant to that appointment was an administrative decision. Nevertheless, for the purposes of Article 2.1 (a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the Tribunal stated that it is not sufficient for the Applicant to merely establish that an administrative decision was taken in the overall context of the position she...

On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the situation held particular urgency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant¡¯s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

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.