Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal held that the application was moot and not receivable. Accordingly, the application was rejected. On issue one, for an order for execution of default judgment, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not obtained a default judgment as he alleged. The 14 December 2009 Order that the Applicant considered a default judgment merely directed the Respondent on the procedural requirements for applying to re-enter the proceedings, and which indeed happened with the Respondent filing a reply on 25 January 2010. On 7 June 2010, the Tribunal proceeded to Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/105 in which...

In the instant case, the Respondent showed that three available P-5 posts were identified as suitable to the Applicant¡¯s qualifications and experience and that he was invited to apply for them for consideration. If the Applicant had put a foot in the door by applying to any of them, then the next stage would have been for the Tribunal to examine whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA selected a non-permanent staff member above the qualified Applicant thus denying the Applicant of the protections afforded him by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13(d). Good faith efforts on both sides means that both parties cooperate to identify...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claims relating to the performance evaluation of his FRO and his SRO¡¯s theoretical negative influence of future performance appraisals to the Applicant¡¯s detriment were not receivable because they either did not form part of the terms and conditions of his employment or had no direct legal consequences on his terms and conditions of employment. With respect to the negative comments and rating of the SRO in his 2015-2016 e-PAS, the Tribunal noted the successful roll-back of the e-PAS and concluded that there no longer existed a live issue because he had...

Receivability: the Applicant could not separately challenge the decisions to abolish his post and to create a new one. This does not mean that the Applicant, while contesting his separation from service, cannot raise arguments touching upon prefatory steps taken in the process leading to such decision and which contributed to it. The need for the Tribunal to go beyond the examination of the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is particularly acute in the present case, where the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s ARR(O) post and to create a new one cannot be dissociated from the...

The decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation can no longer be subject of a challenge before this Tribunal, because it ceased to have legal effect the moment it was rescinded by the decision-maker. Since the contested decision is no longer existing, the Tribunal cannot rule on the Applicant¡¯s case. The outcome of MEU is not of itself an administrative decision. Consequently, this Tribunal cannot pass judgment on it. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review is not receivable. The lack of existence of a substantive matter makes any motion for...

The allegations of soliciting and receiving money from several Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS International Individual Contractors (IICs) were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the established facts legally amounted to misconduct under the staff regulation 1.2(g) and staff rule 1.2(k) because in 2014 and 2015, the Applicant solicited and/or accepted monetary payments from the IICs knowing that these payments were being made because of assistance he provided or was believed to have provided in his position as a finance assistant with the Organization. In the absence of a request for management...

The Tribunal held that the uncontested evidence before it was that the General-Assembly endorsed the Secretary-General¡¯s recommendation for the abolishment of 80 Language Assistant posts, including the one encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal found and held that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was lawful as it was a proper implementation by the Secretary-General of the General Assembly¡¯s decision. In his submissions, the Applicant had indicated that the Organization had abolished his post, but later hired him as an Individual Consultant (IC). He contended...

The Tribunal carefully examined all the correspondence between the parties and was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s argument that the contested administrative decision was conclusively made and communicated to the Applicant on 28 June 2016. The Tribunal was of the view that the correspondence between the parties did not bear out the said argument and found that the Respondent had not apprised himself of all relevant facts on 28 June 2016 when he rejected the claim for an education grant and reimbursement of mother tongue tuition. In the prevailing circumstances, the Tribunal held that the...

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

The contested administrative decision was communicated to the Applicant on 9 August 2016. The Applicant had 60 days thereafter to request management evaluation. In other words, the Applicant had until 8 October 2016 to submit a management evaluation request. From the record, the Applicant requested management evaluation on 8 February 2017 and therefore did so out of time. It follows that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case.