Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez's appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s argument of apprehension of partiality of the hiring manager claiming that there was an improper motive to unfairly eliminate him. The Appeals Tribunal found that the mere fact that the hiring manager was involved in two selection exercises in which Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was not successful did not indicate any partiality, but rather a regular exercise of the Administration¡¯s routine of selecting candidates for advertised positions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding no irregularity in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. It held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its consideration of the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s experience against the evaluation criteria; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred when it rescinded the cancellation of the selection process, invalidating the reason then given that ¡°none of the rostered candidates had met all of the required and desirable criteria of the job opening¡±, and concluding that ¡°at least one of the rostered candidates (the Applicant) met and exceeded all criteria¡±. In so doing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly appropriated the discretion of the Secretary...

The Applicant¡¯s claim was based on her assertion that she was on official travel status at United Nations expense when she was forced to have a stopover of 23 days in Khartoum. Accordingly, she claimed that she was entitled to DSA in accordance with staff rule 7.10. The Tribunal found, however, that there was no category under the applicable legal framwework of entitlement to DSA under which the Applicant¡¯s time in Khartoum fell.

The Tribunal recalled its observations in Fultang Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/102 filed by this Applicant. The measure is provided in the interest of the Organization; and was fully justified by the need to preserve evidence and to avoid the risk of repetition or continuation of further acts similar to those the Applicant was accused of.

The Tribunal found that the use of the investigation report was not subject to the confidentiality agreement between the parties; it was an autonomous document, which was lawfully used in court. The decision did not constitute a disciplinary measure. It was taken pending the completion of the disciplinary process and was without prejudice to the Applicant¡¯s rights. More than one circumstance warranting the placement of the staff member on ALWP occurred. The Applicant could be dismissed or separated from service with the United Nations for breach of the duty of trust and confidence, in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence supports the Hiring Manager¡¯s evaluation of the selected candidate¡¯s candidacy. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that it was within the Respondent¡¯s discretion to select the successful candidate. Moreover, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that he had a significant chance of selection over the selected candidate, absent any of the procedural irregularities that he alleges.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application, as it related to the second contested decision, was filed on time and was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General, that the official holiday at the New York Registry on 5 September 2016 is irrelevant for the determination of the timeliness of the individual¡¯s filing before the Nairobi Registry. Although the case was later transferred to New York, on 6 September 2016, this case was still recorded as pending before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Nairobi and the filing of all documents in that month was expected to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as allegations of improper motive, bias, or prejudice as reasons for the unlawfulness of the non-renewal were not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for its consideration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should not consider them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exceptional circumstances that were required to allow additional pleadings to be considered, were not present. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion in not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in situations of a staff member being declared persona non grata by a host country, it was the duty of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the recruitment exercise was the same and the cancellation of RFR 104637 was just a preparatory step of the selection process because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ignored the difference in the requirements and in the legal framework applicable to those very distinctive ways of contracting and in which each of these contracts is deployed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in fact when it found that certain Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedents were applicable to the present case because the facts in the present case are not materially identical to those in the cited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedents.