Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR did...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a ¡°hold had been put on¡± the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant¡¯s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a ¡°verbal apology¡± (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...

Administration¡¯s withdrawal of unlawful individual administrative decisions which created rights: According to the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s case law, a decision creating rights cannot in principle be withdrawn by the Administration. However, staff rule 11.2 which governs the management evaluation process constitutes an exception to this principle. Thus, under this provision, the Administration is obliged to withdraw an administrative decision that is unlawful where such decision is challenged by a staff member. It is not appropriate to distinguish between the situation where the Administration finds...

Renewal of fixed-term appointments: A decision to extend the fixed-term appointment of a staff member for a short period of time contains in fact two decisions, on the hand a decision to extend, on the other, a decision to set a date beyond which the staff member¡¯s appointment will not be extended. Receivability of application against a renewal decision: It follows from staff rule 4.13(c) that when the fixed-term appointment of a staff member expires, that staff member has no right to renewal. Accordingly, a decision to extend a fixed-term appointment, even for a short period of time, is not a...

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

Fixed-term appointments of short and long duration: The distinction made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR between fixed-term appointments of long duration¡ªi.e., fixed-term appointments of one year or more granted further to a competitive selection process, based on the advice of an Appointments, Postings and Promotions body¡ªand fixed-term appointments of short duration¡ªi.e., fixed-term appointments of less than a year granted without a competitive selection process and not endorsed by an Appointments, Postings and Promotions body¡ªhas its legal foundation in staff regulation 4.3 and staff rule 4.15 (and former staff...