An agency relationship exists between an interview panel and a Programme Manager or Program Case Officer, such that the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel provided that it acts within its terms of reference. The Administration had no prerogative or power to cancel the vacancy announcement for the reasons relied upon.
An interview panel set up by a Programme Manager is the Programme Manager¡¯s agent and as the principal, the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel in so far as the panel does not exceed its mandate. When a head of department having a final say in the making of a selection decision influences the outcome of an interview process and report, the resultant selection process has been unduly interfered with and its integrity compromised. It does not lie within the discretionary authority or prerogative of the Administration to evaluate both 30-day and 60 day...
The Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2.1 (a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal took the view that the decision taken by the administration to appoint an ad interim DCPM and to reallocate responsibilities and duties pursuant to that appointment was an administrative decision. Nevertheless, for the purposes of Article 2.1 (a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the Tribunal stated that it is not sufficient for the Applicant to merely establish that an administrative decision was taken in the overall context of the position she...
The Tribunal is not seized of an intelligible application. The applicant has failed to identify the impugned administrative decision or decisions for which he is seeking relief. He has also failed to identify any steps taken by him to seek administrative review of the impugned administrative decisions. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (1) (a) and Article 8(1) of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the equivalent provisions of the Statute of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal to consider the application. Second, the applicant has failed to comply with two orders of the...
Articles 2(1) and 2(1) (a) of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT define a contract of employment to include ¡°all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of the alleged non-compliance. There is nothing before the Tribunal to evidence that the Applicant signed any LOA in relation to the offer made by the organization to employ him on the terms defined in the reassignment memorandum dated 10 June 2008. The reassignment memorandum contained terms that were not certain, that were qualified and cannot therefore besaid to have been a final and binding...
The impugned decision was suspended until when the matter would be heard and determined on the merits.
The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.
Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter...
With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...
Due Process: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded in Molari that ¡°disciplinary cases are not criminal.¡± So therefore the right and rules pertaining to self-incrimination are purely associated with criminal procedure and therefore does not apply in this instance which is a disciplinary case. The Tribunal finds that she was provided systematically with the evidence, including the payslips in the course of the interview, in addition to an opportunity to review the record of interview. Ultra vires: In this case the person who took the decision as recorded in the letter of dismissal was the Under Secretary-General for...
