Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

According to the available record, the applicant never received a letter of appointment and no such letter was ever signed by an authorized official. He did not, therefore, become a staff member of the United Nations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. It follows that the applicant has no access to the system of administration of justice in its present state. It is noted that the General Assembly has requested the Secretary-General to investigate the option of granting access to non-staff personnel. Outcome: the application was rejected.

Since he remained a WFP staff member and pursuant to the above-mentioned Inter-Organization Agreement, the applicant never had a contractual relationship with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID. Only WFP was in a position to render decisions that could affect his terms of appointment. Two decisions were at stake. With respect to the first (WFP decision not to treat him as a D-1), his case could not be heard before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because WFP has recognised ILOAT as judicial review body. Concerning the second (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID decision not to appoint him as Deputy Director), the applicant is not a ¡°staff member¡± within the meaning of art. 3...

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

Since the applicant did not comply with the time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a), the Tribunal examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances within the meaning of former staff rule 111.2 (f) which prevented her from submitting a request for review in time.The Tribunal applied the definition of exceptional circumstances adopted by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and upheld by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in a number of judgments, i.e. circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Outcome: The application was rejected as time-barred.

Out of the various decisions that the applicant challenged, only those raised in the request for administrative request are receivable. Mere preparatory decisions may not be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of its statute. Indeed, those decisions are not of such nature as to affect the staff member¡¯s rights per se; they can be called into question in contesting the main/final decision, but not by themselves. Furthermore, since the applicant had already been promoted by the time he filed the present case, he had no legitimate interest to take legal action.

The contested decision was linked to the decision to bar the applicant from entering the VIC in October 1999, when he was no longer a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV. Hence, the decision to deny his counsel access to the applicant¡¯s OSF did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The application was thus neither receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nor before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Outcome: The application was rejected.

The contested decision did not affect the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment derived from his status as a former staff member or from his status as a retiree. Furthermore, there is not a contractual relationship between the applicant and the Organization derived from his voluntary service as a member of the Panel of Counsel. The application was thus neither receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nor before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Outcome: The application was rejected.

The application is prima facie not receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

Receivability: Although the applicant accepted the assignment, this does not mean that all decisions taken by the Administration with respect to the applicant must be deemed correct and lawful. The Organization¡¯s decision to base its calculation of the applicant¡¯s salary on her net income constitutes an administrative decision affecting her contractual right to proper remuneration and the case is therefore receivable. Salary calculation: ST/IC/2007/24 and ST/AI/2000/1 articulate that all G-level staff will be receiving an SPA to the P-2 level. Pursuant to provisional staff rule 3.10(d), the...