Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability: the Applicant could not separately challenge the decisions to abolish his post and to create a new one. This does not mean that the Applicant, while contesting his separation from service, cannot raise arguments touching upon prefatory steps taken in the process leading to such decision and which contributed to it. The need for the Tribunal to go beyond the examination of the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is particularly acute in the present case, where the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s ARR(O) post and to create a new one cannot be dissociated from the...

The decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation can no longer be subject of a challenge before this Tribunal, because it ceased to have legal effect the moment it was rescinded by the decision-maker. Since the contested decision is no longer existing, the Tribunal cannot rule on the Applicant¡¯s case. The outcome of MEU is not of itself an administrative decision. Consequently, this Tribunal cannot pass judgment on it. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review is not receivable. The lack of existence of a substantive matter makes any motion for...

The Tribunal held that the uncontested evidence before it was that the General-Assembly endorsed the Secretary-General¡¯s recommendation for the abolishment of 80 Language Assistant posts, including the one encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal found and held that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was lawful as it was a proper implementation by the Secretary-General of the General Assembly¡¯s decision. In his submissions, the Applicant had indicated that the Organization had abolished his post, but later hired him as an Individual Consultant (IC). He contended...

The Tribunal carefully examined all the correspondence between the parties and was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s argument that the contested administrative decision was conclusively made and communicated to the Applicant on 28 June 2016. The Tribunal was of the view that the correspondence between the parties did not bear out the said argument and found that the Respondent had not apprised himself of all relevant facts on 28 June 2016 when he rejected the claim for an education grant and reimbursement of mother tongue tuition. In the prevailing circumstances, the Tribunal held that the...

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

The contested administrative decision was communicated to the Applicant on 9 August 2016. The Applicant had 60 days thereafter to request management evaluation. In other words, the Applicant had until 8 October 2016 to submit a management evaluation request. From the record, the Applicant requested management evaluation on 8 February 2017 and therefore did so out of time. It follows that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant¡¯s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was underpaid between July 2004 and 31 May 2005, was not receivable. The Tribunal was satisfied that in the period in relation to which the Applicant alleged underpayments by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Administration, the Applicant was not a staff member appointed by the Secretary-General. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to persons who are staff members or former staff members of the Organization. Therefore, the Applicant had no locus standi regarding the claims derived from another status, but not a staff member. With regard to the non-renewal...

The Tribunal held that MONUSCO¡¯s 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum unambiguously informed the Applicant of the mission¡¯s decision to end his appointment, which at this point was a continuing appointment, by separating him from service on 24 October 2014. The Tribunal held that the 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum was an administrative decision because it had a direct and adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual status and had direct legal consequences for him. The Tribunal concluded that the FPD/DFS response of 31 October 2016 was a reiteration of the 17 October 2014 decision...

The impugned decision of 21 April 2015 clearly: a) emanated from the Administration and b) produced direct legal consequences for the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. As such, the decision was capable of being subject to management evaluation as well as capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Applicant had until 90 days from 8 June 2015 to file an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Applicant did not do so until 1 March 2016. The application is, therefore, late by almost six months. The Applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would warrant waiving the time...