Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.

The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant¡¯s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines and its rules and procedures, namely: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON management abused its authority in refusing to release the Applicant on mission assignment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID and in denying him the grant of a lien on his post. The failure by the Ethics Office in refusing to act on the basis of the report of retaliation filed by the Applicant and its failure to take all necessary action to protect the Applicant from retaliation.

Receivability -...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was not res judicata. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2013/014). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.

This case was first decided by the Dispute Tribunal by Leboeuf et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/206, rendered on 30 November 2010. The case, however, was remanded by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal for ¡°further proceedings¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants' claims against the lawfulness of the change introduced in December 2004, with effect from January 2005, are time-barred and not receivable under arts. 8.3 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider them and the application was receivable only with respect to the subsequent application of the policy on...