Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to declare the existence of his friendship with the selected candidate, including in response to a direct inquiry prior to the completion of the selection process and during the disciplinary process, and that his actions affected the impartiality and fairness of the selection process and the trust vested in him. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during each phase of the disciplinary process and the sanction imposed was proportional to the misconduct. The application is therefore rejected. The Applicant did not demonstrate that there...

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...

The Tribunal found that the decision regarding the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement has a crucial impact on the case because had his request to be reinstated be considered positively, his service with the Organization would have been considered continuous. The Tribunal ordered the Administration to decide on the request for reinstatement after a policy including the conditions for reinstatement is promulgated and to review, afterward, the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment. The Tribunal remanded the contested decision to the...

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.

The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant nullified his request for management evaluation by asking the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) to put his request on hold indefinitely and by not seeking reinstatement of said request later on. Administrative decision: The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant filed a management evaluation request, there was no administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute outstanding when this request was filed because his fixed term appointment had been extended to 30 June 2012.

The Applicant claimed that the Administration had implicitly accepted that he was suitable as he had not been excluded from the process at the stage when suitability was discussed. Hence, and given that the applicable Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR recruitment rules provide for priority consideration of internal candidates, no external candidates should have been even considered. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements nor the required professional experience for the post; as such, he was not eligible and, thus, not suitable for the post. Despite him being an...

Receivability - The Tribunal accepted that the extended use of the temporary appointments was the reason for the disparity in the amount of relocation grant that the Applicant was entitled to and that this negatively affected the Applicant. This however was the subject of a settlement agreement between the parties. Further, in this Application the Applicant was effectively asking the Tribunal to find that the Rules on relocation grant for temporary employees are unlawful. Those rules were based on resolutions of the General Assembly. Pursuant to art. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the Tribunal¡¯s...

Receivability - The Tribunal accepted that the extended use of the temporary appointments was the reason for the disparity in the amount of relocation grant that the Applicant was entitled to and that this negatively affected the Applicant. This however was the subject of a settlement agreement between the parties. Further, in this Application the Applicant was effectively asking the Tribunal to find that the Rules on relocation grant for temporary employees are unlawful. Those rules were based on resolutions of the General Assembly. Pursuant to art. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the Tribunal¡¯s...

The Tribunal found that the Application is not receivable and dismissed it. Receivability - The Tribunal accepted that the extended use of the temporary appointments was the reason for the disparity in the amount of assignment grant that the Applicant was entitled to and that this negatively affected the Applicant. However, in this Application the Applicant was effectively asking the Tribunal to find that the Rules on assignment grants for staff members on temporary appointments are unlawful. Those rules were based on resolutions of the General Assembly. Pursuant to art. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute...