Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not derive negative consequences from the putative error in the EOD date.

The Tribunal noted that, on 12 January 2018, the Deputy Director of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS People and Change Group, in a telephone call, informed unequivocally the Applicant of the contested decision. The Applicant claimed that he was only officially made aware of his non-selection for the post when a formal announcement was made on 1 March 2018, which stated that another candidate had been chosen for the position. The Tribunal found that this claim was ill-founded, as a verbal unequivocal communication is sufficient for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) (see Auda 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-746). The Tribunal considered...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. It resulted from the file that, on 24 November 2017, the Applicant received a letter indicating that she had not been matched against any post in the newly planned structure of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC). This letter clearly stated that ¡°all posts in the current WSSCC structure [were] being abolished with effect [close of business] 31 March 2018¡±, that her appointment would not be renewed when it expires on 31 March 2018 and she would be separated from service. The Tribunal considered that the...

Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant¡¯s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal¡¯s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration¡¯s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant¡¯s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of ¡°successfully meets expectations¡±. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant¡¯s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...

Procedural issues Respondent¡¯s challenge to the admissibility of certain documents Art. 18 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure contains the set of norms applicable to evidence. However, except for article 18.6, there is no specific provision in relation to admissibility of evidence based on recordings made without consent. The Tribunal finds that the transcript of a meeting the Applicant recorded is not admissible in the proceedings because it is tainted by the fact that one of the participants at the meeting was not aware that the meeting was being recorded. The Applicant cannot make use of...

The Tribunal understands that in light of HR¡¯s emails, the Applicant could have reasonably understood by mistake that his contract would be further extended pending proceedings in his cases before the Dispute Tribunal. As the Applicant did not request management evaluation within that deadline and waited until 22 June 2019, his application is not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was unlawful based on the Respondent¡¯s admission that ¡°although there were legitimate reasons to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post, the decision to do so, which led to the non-extension of her appointment [¡­] was based, in part, on flawed considerations¡±. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. Remedies The Tribunal noted that the Applicant worked as an Operations Manager, at the NO-C level, in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Morocco Country Office. She worked on a fixed-term appointment since February 2010...

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.