Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Moreover, it had not caused her any prejudice. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

When the Tribunal is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under articles 2.1(c) and 8.2 of its Statute, the Tribunal¡¯s competence is limited to verifying whether the agreement reached through mediation has been implemented.Outcome:

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which prevails in case of contradiction with the Staff Rules as it is superior in the hierarchy of norms, prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation or, if the Administration has not replied to such request, following the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before...

Confirmatory decisions: Confirmatory decision do not have the effect of reopening the time limits for formal contestation, as the said time limits run from the time the original decision was notified to the concerned staff member.Future disputes: It is not for the Tribunal to pronounce itself on forthcoming disputes.Outcome:Application rejected on receivability

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...

Roster candidates: The fact that a candidate is rostered does not prevent the hiring manager from conducting a selection process and it does not give the roster candidate any kind of priority. Assessment methods: Hiring managers have large latitude in choosing the methods used to assess candidates, taking into account the technical requirements of the post. In particular, resorting to subject matter experts to evaluate work samples of the candidates is in accordance with the rules of the staff selection system. Scope of judicial review: It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own...

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...

Grounds for non-renewal: No provision requires the Administration to give the reasons for a non-renewal decision. However, when a staff member contests the non-renewal of his or her contract before the Tribunal, the Organization must provide the reasons for this decision and the staff member has the right to contest the legality of the same.Discretionary power and scope of judicial review: The Administration has discretion to organize its services and thus to finance or not a programme. It is not for the Tribunal to assess the correctness of this kind of decisions.Burden of proof of extraneous...

Decision affecting the applicant¡¯s rights: Since staff members have the right to apply to other positions under the Staff Regulations and Rules, they are entitled to contest a non-selection decision and a fortiori a decision imposing an additional condition for appointment after having been selected. Such a decision does affect the staff member¡¯s rights and is thus open to appeal.Lack of legal basis for the condition to renounce to permanent resident status: The General Assembly never endorsed the recommendations to approve the establishment of the condition that staff members must relinquish...

The Tribunal examined whether the two-year limitation for the recovery of the overpayment as stated in ST/AI/2009/1 applied to the case at hand. While it was undisputed that the overpayment resulted from an error on the part of the Organization, the Tribunal found that the Applicant could not seriously claim that she was unaware or that she could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the overpayment, and it therefore concluded that the two- year limitation could not apply to her.

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable because the contested decision is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 11.2(b) and accordingly the time limits applicable under art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute should have been complied with. It clearly follows from staff rule 11.2(b) that the exemption from the requirement to request the management evaluation of a disciplinary measure only applies to disciplinary measures imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s rights to defence had been breached during the disciplinary procedure because the investigation report and all its attachments had not been shared with him. It concluded however that such a procedural flaw did not affect the established facts, since the Applicant had admitted to them, and did not warrant the rescission of the contested decision, since the established facts amounted to misconduct. The Tribunal nevertheless rescinded the summary dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate to the established facts. It ordered: (i) the reinstatement...

The Tribunal found that it is incumbent on the Organization to pay home leave travel expenses only for children who are declared and recognized as dependants of the staff member with whom they travel. Family members eligible for home leave travel: Staff rule 5.2(j), which provides that ¡°[d]ependent children whose parents are staff members, each of whom is entitled to home leave, may accompany either parent¡±, must be interpreted in conjunction with staff rules 7.1 and 7.2. In doing so, it becomes clear that the Organization covers only the home leave travel expenses regarding children...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable ratione termporis, considering that, for the purpose of former staff rule 111.2(a), the Applicant was duly notified of his non-selection by the email of 5 June 2009, and that subsequent communications were merely confirmative. Notification of non-selection decision: Former staff rule 111.2(a) did not require that a decision must be communicated in any specific manner, except that it must be in writing. Confirmative decisions: A decision which merely confirms a previous one may not be appealed and it does not reopen the time limit for formal...

The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration¡¯s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...