Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the applications were receivable since the contested decisions produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal further found that the chosen period of retroactive application of one year was not only unlawful because it was based on a misconstruction and misapplication of staff rule 3.16 but it was manifestly unreasonable, irrational, and above all unjustifiably discriminatory. It did not amount to a proper exercise of administrative discretion and breached the fundamental principle of equal pay...

The Tribunal found that the acts described under (1), (4) and (5) did not meet the definition of a challengeable administrative decision, whereas the Applicant¡¯s contention with regard to (2) was moot since her appointment had been extended by the Organization and she was not separated after 31 December 2013. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant¡¯s contention made under (3), as it considered that she did not fall under the categories of staff members for which the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Management has the authority of exceptional placement outside the normal selection...

The Applicant, who had been separated on 31 December 2012, filed a report to OIOS in January 2013 referring to ¡°gross breaches of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ project management and procurement rules and regulations¡± (part A of the complaint), ¡°mal intended recruitment¡± (part B of the complaint) and ¡°misconduct of supervisor¡± (part C of the complaint). He appealed the OIOS decision not to launch an investigation into his report and ¡°not to provide him with the requisite information and to provide misleading information¡±. The Tribunal found that the application with respect to the decision not to investigate part A was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted despite reminders sent by the Staff Union, and once the Applicant realized that her application had not been processed, she still did not take any action to rectify the situation, and filed her application only nearly two years later. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the circumstances the Applicant described could not be considered ¡°beyond her control¡±, and rejected her request for a waiver of the time limit to file her application as being unfounded; hence the application was rejected as being time-barred.

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

The ST/SGB/2008/5 requirement for the administration to act promptly on complaints of prohibited activity was not observed in the case of the Applicant¡¯s complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT required more information on the present state of the process and held that this case was suitable to remand for institution or correction of the required procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT suspended the proceedings and orderd the Secretary-General to advise Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of the present position of the investivgation into the Applicant¡¯s complaint and whether he concurs with the remand of the case for institution and correction of the procedure under ST...

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The application was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. The Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 2,000 for abuse of process. On receivability: The Tribunal found that the PDF version of the application attached to the email of 15 September 2012, also copied to OHRM and EO/OCHA, met the requirements of art. 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal. It was moreover identical to the application filed through the e-filing portal on 15 October 2012. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the...

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. C

The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant¡¯s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...