Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...

The Application is not receivable pursuant to arts. 8.1 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s ruling in Terragnolo 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-517. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the merits of the case. Given the nature of the defects in the pleadings prepared by her Counsel, including the failure to observe basic legal and procedural requirements within the United Nations regulatory framework and Staff Rules, Counsel may wish to review the bill of costs, if any.

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to ICTR¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision had no legal consequences which caused her material harm or otherwise adversely affected her terms or conditions of appointment. Request for anonymity: The Tribunal concluded that in balancing the right of the Applicant to have her personal data and sensitive material protected against the principle of transparency, the pleadings and associated documents did not reveal any material or information concerning the Applicant that requires protection.

Receivability - The arguments that this Application is not receivable were premised on the provisions of section 5 of ST/AI/1998/9 which is the legislation governing the policies and procedures for the classification and reclassification of posts. In the instant case, there was no attempt or effort made to reclassify the Applicant¡¯s post. The Respondent¡¯s preliminary objection that this Application is not receivable is therefore irrelevant and accordingly dismissed. Admissibility of evidence ¨C In considering the Respondent¡¯s prayer with regard to the admissibility of Annex 13, the Tribunal...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to OHRM¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision was expressly reversed and rendered moot when the Department of Field Support completed its review of the Applicant¡¯s case and determined that the Applicant met the remaining eligibility criteria for conversion to a continuing appointment. The Tribunal noted the general principle that where an impugned decision has been corrected by the Administration before a challenge to the Tribunal has been determined; it is in the power of the Tribunal to find that the challenge...

The Tribunal found that the application deals with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal (Tintukasiri et al. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-526), and that it was not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had missed the deadline to request management evaluation of the refusal to provide her with a badge; hence, her application was irreceivable ratione materiae in that respect. As for the denial of legal assistance, the Tribunal considered that in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, which lies in the fact that the relationship between the Applicant and her former supervisors in the Office of the Administration of Justice, including the Chief, OSLA, had completely broken down, the refusal to grant assistance to the Applicant through OSLA could...

The Tribunal rejected all of them as irreicevable: first, it found that the application concerning a decision to refer allegations of misconduct made against the Applicant to the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, was time-barred, as the Applicant had not filed her application within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the 45-day response period for management evaluation. Secondly, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation for three other administrative acts she wished to contest, two of them being...

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the United Nations and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member.