Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal noted that the issue of contention was whether a staff member seconded to the Secretariat, from a fund or programme in the United Nations System, is ¡°serving with the United Nations Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment¡± for purposes of eligibility for a continuing appointment. At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF (a Programme) but serving on secondment in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP (part of the Secretariat).

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that under the Inter-Organization Agreement and the letters of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings in the form of submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had decided previously that the MICT was a Secretariat entity and was thus precluded from holding to the contrary. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not eligible for a continuing appointment for three reasons: (1) he did not work for the Secretariat; (2) the MICT had no authority to grant a continuing appointment; and (3) he was not in active service in the Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment throughout the period of consideration. On consideration...

The Tribunal found that the standard of review in Kulawat, though it was applied in a case regarding conversion to a permanent appointment, can also be applicable mutatis mutandis to cases of continuing appointments because to be considered for either of the types of appointments staff members must fulfil certain eligibility requirements laid down in bulletins and administrative instructions. The Tribunal stressed that the existence of an ¡°expectation of re-appointment¡± between two short-term contracts does not in itself create ¡°a continuous service¡± in a staff member¡¯s employment. The...

The complaint concerning the receivability of the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment was dismissed on two grounds. It was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation and secondly, because the Applicant was not in active service throughout the period of consideration as required by the provisions of section 2.6 of ST/AI/2012/3. The Tribunal found that the civilian staffing review conducted by the RSCE, resulting in the reduction of several posts, was conducted for a bona fide reason and its proposals were endorsed by the General Assembly...

The Tribunal found the first application receivable because a response to the Applicant¡¯s request for implementation of the award of the continuing appointment of which he was notified by Inspira on 3 November 2016 was only made by the MICT on 31 May 2017. The Applicant was still within the prescribed time limits of 60 days under staff rule 11.3(c) when he sought management evaluation on 11 July. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant transferred from DPKO, which is part of the Secretariat, to the MICT. Before the said transfer, the Applicant had been invited by OHRM to...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been selected by a Secretariat review body, which is a requirement under sec 2.1 of ST/SGB/2011/9. The Tribunal held that this was rational and consistent with General Assembly resolution 65/247 that for continuing appointments with the Secretariat, the requisite review be done by a Secretarit review body rather than other specialized review bodies. This condition was not satisfied in the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the impugned decision not to grant the Applicant the continuing appointment was correct. The application was thus dismissed.

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis¡± (see Manco 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...