Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal was of the view that, essentially, the Applicant attempted to create an administrative decision in an attempt to contest it. Whilst the approach discloses some imagination on the part of the Applicant, the absence of a response by the High Commissioner to the Applicant¡¯s request does not create any direct legal consequence for him. Thus, there is no administrative decision, directly or by implication, that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider. The Applicant has no right to make an appeal in respect of matters to which he was not a party. Indeed, the Applicant did not...

The Applicant was notified of his non-selection on 7 December 2016. Yet, he requested management evaluation only on 11 April 2017.; Paragraph 119 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s Revised Policy and Procedures on Assignments (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR/HCP/2015/2/Rev.1) provides that: ¡°Staff members who have reasons to believe that they have not been given full and fair consideration for a particular decision, have; the right to be provided, upon request, with information on the process which led to that particular decision¡±. Its purpose is merely to establish a duty for the Administration to provide non-successful candidates, upon...

Receivability; The application is receivable ratione personae. After accepting the offer of employment, the Applicant effectively started to perform the functions of Senior Economic Affairs; Officer, ECE, on 1 May 2017. The Organization thus treated him like a staff member, although he was not eligible to apply and be selected for the position and no letter of appointment was signed. As a result, the Applicant is legitimately entitled to rights similar to those afforded to staff members, for the purpose of being granted access to the internal justice system of the United Nations.; Merits; The...

Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s contentions, the contested administrative decisions were not disciplinary measures imposed pursuant to the applicable legal procedures in ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The Applicant became aware of this as evidenced by his subsequent request for management evaluation of 23 November 2018. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable. It was filed without having first been submitted to management evaluation. The Applicant had to await the result of his management evaluation dated 23 November 2018 (or expiry of...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.

Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant¡¯s dispute with ICAO.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...