Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

The application was rejected as being manifestly inadmissible and not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines were not applicable to the recruitment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵLB GS local staff, because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵLB is not an ¡°established mission¡± and, therefore, does not fall within their remit; additionally, the Guidelines were never duly issued at ULNB. In fact, given that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵLB is not a peacekeeping operation or a special political mission, GS staff recruitments are covered by ST/AI/2010/3 and do not fall, as argued by the Respondent, in a lacuna of law,. The Tribunal further found that the time-in-grade requirements were abolished long ago and are contrary to norms of superior legal...

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

The Tribunal found that the application deals with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal (Tintukasiri et al. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-526), and that it was not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute.

The Tribunal rejected all of them as irreicevable: first, it found that the application concerning a decision to refer allegations of misconduct made against the Applicant to the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, was time-barred, as the Applicant had not filed her application within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the 45-day response period for management evaluation. Secondly, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation for three other administrative acts she wished to contest, two of them being...

The Tribunal considered that the application was not receivable on the grounds that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing his application before the Tribunal.

Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.

The Tribunal found that, although the decision to appoint a new panel emanated indeed from the Administration, it did not amount to an appealable administrative decision because it was merely preparatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it. Discretionary and not discretionary decisions: The well-established definition of administrative decision does not even mention¡ªlet alone require¡ªany given degree of discretion among the elements characterising it. Administrative decisions may be discretionary or not discretionary, and this does not affect their...