Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

The Tribunal issued a summary judgment dismissing the application as premature and not receivable. The Applicant had not waited for the outcome of his request for management evaluation or the expiration of the 30-day time limit for the Management Evaluation Unit to respond to the request.

There was a valid offer of employment made to the Applicant, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the Applicant acquired the status of an individual entitled to seek redress before the Tribunal. The act of requesting the waiver following the issuance, and acceptance, of the offer of appointment formed part of a continuum of events which should properly have led to the Applicant being appointed to the position she was sought out for. Noting that the decision not to appoint the Applicant would probably not be rescinded, the Tribunal, in the alternative, awarded her 18 months¡¯ net base salary...

The Tribunal found, on receivability, that this amounts to an appealable administrative decision, insofar as it had direct effects on the Applicant¡¯s rights, and on the merits, that filling a vacancy by laterally transferring a staff member holding the same grade and within the department of the vacant post, without undergoing a full-fledged selection procedure under the staff selection system, does not per se violate the applicable legal framework. Direct legal effects: A decision to fill a given vacancy through a lateral movement has direct legal effects on the rights of potential candidates...

The Tribunal found that the non-extension of the Applicant¡¯s appointment in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI was not a termination but her mission assignment simply came to an end after the maximum two years. The Applicant¡¯s challenge of the administrative decision to restrict her mission assignment to the maximum of two years is not receivable as she failed to request for management evaluation. Receivability - Even if by any stretch of reasoning it was open to the Applicant to challenge the conditions of her mission assignment which she had accepted on 28 January 2013, time began to run for her to challenge that...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.

The Tribunal determined that the matter put to it is the filling of a P-3 translator vacancy in RTS, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, by a lateral transfer, under sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, instead of through a competitive selection process, which would have then required the advertisement of a vacancy announcement for the concerned post on different grounds his non-selection for the post of Chief, Russian Translation Unit, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. This is a decision having direct effects on the Applicant¡¯s rights, hence appealable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that filling a vacancy through a lateral transfer of a staff member...

Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has neither submitted a request to the ASG/OHRM for exceptional grant of an ex gratia payment under staff rule 12.3(b) nor has he submitted a Management Evaluation Request in respect to the same. The Applicant has not complied with staff rule 11.2(a). As such, the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae under art. 8.1(c) of its Statute. SPA and ex gratia payments - The legal bases for the grant of SPA are set out in staff rule 3.10 and ST/AI/2003/3. The aforementioned rules do not provide a legal basis for the grant of an ex gratia...