Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/094. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87¨C88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal¡¯s order in para. 87 of Sprauten Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration¡¯s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was not res judicata. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2013/014). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application. Scope of judicial control: In appointment and promotion matters the Tribunal's role is limited to examining whether the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, whether the decision was taken without any bias against the Applicant, whether proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant material was taken into account. Elements prior to the selection process¡ªsuch as a restructuring exercise, the transfer of the selected candidate to a given post¡ªare normally not under consideration. Administration¡¯s discretion to define the...

When joining Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS in 2009, the Applicant¡¯s nationality for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...

The Tribunal found that the selected candidates, which were endorsed by the Central Review Board, were graded above the Applicant and that there was no merit to his claim of impropriety regarding the selection process which was lawful and was not tainted by bias or other improper considerations. Participation of former incumbent in selection process: The Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual does not limit an incumbent¡¯s involvement with regard to the selection of his or her successor for a post that has already been vacated. Therefore his presence on the interview panel did not affect any of the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, since it was directed against decisions with regulatory power. The issuance of secondary salary scales to staff recruited on or after 1 March 2012 is not of individual application and does not produce direct legal consequences; it constitutes an administrative act with regulatory power, but not an administrative decision under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The freeze of existing salary scales in effect since 1 August 2010 applies to a group of staff members defined exclusively by their status and...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.

The Tribunal noted that the HM has broad discretionary power to exercise a preliminary evaluation of the released applicants in order to establish the shortlist of the most qualified candidates to be invited for further assessment, and that the Tribunal will not easily interfere with the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in these matters and substitute its judgment for that of the competent decision maker. It further noted that the work experience requirement as listed in the vacancy announcement (VA) was already described in broad terms, thus opening the door to large discretion as to what...

The Tribunal noted that the content of the notes taken by the three panel members echoed similar answers given by the Applicant, which is a clear indication that they reflect the interview as it indeed happened and the answers provided by the Applicant. The Tribunal was also provided with the list of questions asked by the Panel during all interviews, and noted that the assertions made by the Applicant that she was not asked exactly those questions as they stood were unfounded and not corroborated by any evidence. It recalled that it was well within the discretionary power of the Assessment...