Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute...

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent¡¯s obligation to notify...

The failure to re-interview the subject of an investigation to confront him/her with additional gathered evidence constitutes a breach of his/her due process rights: the contested disciplinary decision is unlawful since it was taken based on the evidence and recommendations of the SIU/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID investigation reports issued in January 2013 and December 2013, even though the SIU/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID continued the investigation and gathered additional evidence from two witnesses in January 2015 and April 2015. The new evidence was never brought to the attention of the Applicant or of the decision-maker before...

The Tribunal held that the Respondent had made more than a minimal showing that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of D-1, Chief of Service, Humanitarian Affairs, was not tainted by improper consideations. The Applicant failed to show that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

1) With regard to Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The only decision under Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent¡¯s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Tribunal...

The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the requirements of ST/AI/2003/3 were not satisfied since the Applicant was not serving on a higher-level post or regularly performing functions at the P-5 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant was serving on a post that was budgeted and classified at the P-4 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further noted that there is no P-5 post within the Conference Management and Translation Unit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Special Post Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed all claims.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

Regarding the merits, the abolishment of a number of posts was decided by the; General Assembly. This decision is outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The SecretaryGeneral¡¯s role was to implement it through identifying particular posts for reduction. In the process, the Applicant¡¯s post was so selected, which entailed the decision on termination of his appointment. The Tribunal¡¯s cognizance extends over reviewing the appropriateness of the steps which led to this decision, however, in so far only as they are attributed to the Secretary-General. Prima facie, the Tribunal finds no reason to...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.