Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability/administrative decision: Preparatory measures such as the decision not to prepare a work plan for the purpose of appraising a staff member¡¯s performance can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal. Rebuttal procedure: It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that a staff member may not challenge before the Tribunal his/her performance rating unless he/she has previously initiated the rebuttal process provided for in this administrative instruction.

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

Administrative decision: A decision imposing to a staff member an obligation to report to work may not be said to be purely preparatory in nature, as it has effects on his or her terms of appointment. As such, it is a decision open to appeal before the Tribunal. Interim measures: The Tribunal may only grant suspension of action on a decision as an interim measure under articles 10.2 of the Statute and 14 of the Rules of procedure during the proceedings of a case, that is, when there is an application against the same decision pending before it. Management evaluation/receivability of suspension...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant¡¯s case rests firmly at her own door.

Appealable decisions: According to article 2.1(a) of the Statute, a staff member may not contest before the Tribunal a decision which does not affect his or her rights under the staff member¡¯s contract of employment or terms of appointment.Decisions on publication of United Nations documents: Pursuant to former staff rule 112.7 and staff rule 1.9, all rights on documents prepared by a staff member as part of his or her functions following his or her supervisors¡¯ instructions and under their supervision belong to the Organization only. Accordingly, a decision on the publication of such document...

Outcome: The Tribunal awarded the Applicant USD25,000 for the breach of his rights and the resultant harm. The Applicant also contested the decision to remove some of his functions from him and modify his reporting arrangements, to initiate and carry out a fact-finding management review in relation to his performance, and to place him on special leave with full pay (¡°SLWFP¡±). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made the following findings. The Respondent failed to meet its obligations for assessing and managing the performance of the Applicant. The Respondent did not fully and fairly raise the performance issues at the...

Categories of candidates: The staff selection system established in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 was based on a rigid hierarchy of three categories of candidates in terms of priority consideration: 15, 30 and 60-day mark candidates. If a candidate belonged to a priority category he or she was excluded from the less priority ones. Internal, non-internal and external candidates: ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 distinguished between: (1) internal candidates, strictly defined in section 1; (2) non-internal candidates, comprising staff members who did not fall within this definition; and (3) external candidates, those...

Time limit to request management evaluation: Pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. Confirmative decisions: Confirmative decisions do not have the effect of reopening time limits for appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Moreover, it had not caused her any prejudice. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.