Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.

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...

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant¡¯s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes ¡°that official acts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his ¡°tour of duty¡± with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

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 Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. The application was dismissed.

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 Tribunal ruled that the selection procedure was flawed on grounds that: (a) first and foremost, the evaluations of the candidates as agreed to by the panel had been substantially modified prior to their transmission to the Director-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, for the final decision, without the approval of the panel members; (b) the panel gave the Applicants misleading instructions during the interview that impacted negatively on their ratings; (c) the Director-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, was not demonstrably provided with a documented record enabling him to make an informed selection decision; (d) no written...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration¡¯s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...