Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant¡¯s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes ¡°that official acts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his ¡°tour of duty¡± with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.

The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant¡¯s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. The application was dismissed.

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines and its rules and procedures, namely: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON management abused its authority in refusing to release the Applicant on mission assignment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID and in denying him the grant of a lien on his post. The failure by the Ethics Office in refusing to act on the basis of the report of retaliation filed by the Applicant and its failure to take all necessary action to protect the Applicant from retaliation.

Receivability -...

The Tribunal ruled that the selection procedure was flawed on grounds that: (a) first and foremost, the evaluations of the candidates as agreed to by the panel had been substantially modified prior to their transmission to the Director-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, for the final decision, without the approval of the panel members; (b) the panel gave the Applicants misleading instructions during the interview that impacted negatively on their ratings; (c) the Director-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, was not demonstrably provided with a documented record enabling him to make an informed selection decision; (d) no written...