Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Administration did not have a legal obligation towards the Applicant to take action at any stage in relation to the fraud. No legally relevant relationship between OCHA and the Applicant existed; the fact that the Applicant¡¯s aunt submitted her applications to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member did not create such a relationship. No Organization is bound to respond to uninvited applications for jobs that the Organization had not previously announced. Neither OCHA nor any other Organization can be made liable for criminal abuse of its name and reputation.The Applicant, who resigned from her post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA...

He filed his request for administrative review on 2 December 2008 and his application before the Tribunal on 13 January 2010. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was first informed of the contested decision, in writing, on 5 February 2008, and that he also received written reiterations of the same decision in March and April 2008. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to request administrative review of the decision not to renew his contract within the applicable time limit and that the Tribunal was proscribed, under Costa 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036, from waiving it. The Tribunal found that, even...

When the Administration takes a decision which confirms an initial decision, the time limit to contest the decision starts to run from the date of the initial decision. In the case at hand, while the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 2 November 2009, he only requested management evaluation of this decision on 31 March 2010. He thus failed to comply with the established time limit to request management evaluation. When a staff member wishes to contest a decision which, in his view, is unlawful because of the incompetence of the body which took the decision, he/she should...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that, in light of Order No. 62 (NY/2010) and the subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there was no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT closed the case without a determination of its merits.

The Respondent submitted, inter alia, that the present application was time-barred as it was not filed within 90 days from the date of receipt by the Applicant of the management evaluation. The Applicant submitted that the filing of the present application was delayed due to exceptional circumstances, namely his attempts to resolve the matter informally, including with the assistance of OSLA. The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than four months after the expiration of the relevant time period. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant¡¯s informal discussions with the...

Receivability: Only the appeal of the compensation amount was receivable¡ªthe Respondent had already conceded to the selection processes being flawed, the Applicant¡¯s return to her liened post was not an administrative decision in itself, and the Applicant had defined a fourth decision too vaguely to give it any meaning. Compliance with orders: Lacking a response from Counsel for the Applicant to a written order, the Tribunal determined that, due to his failure to comply with the order, by default the Tribunal would deem that the Applicant had agreed with the Respondent¡¯s contentions regarding...

The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

The Tribunal, noting that the Applicant had failed to comply with the time limit set out in former staff rule 111.2(a), focused solely on whether there were ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s mere assertion that she was unable to follow-up and was incapable of submitting a reasoned appeal as a result of psychological and professional stress was inadequate to warrant a waiver of the time limits. Based on the limited submissions of the Applicant, the Tribunal was unable to establish any causal relation between her state of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

Regulatory decisions v. individual administrative decisions: An applicant may plead the unlawfulness of a regulatory decision only in the context of an appeal against an individual administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory decision. The Tribunal may not rescind a regulatory decision.