Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed her application on the merits on 26 March 2018, namely on the same day on which she filed her two requests for management evaluation. The Tribunal recalled that according to art.8.1(d)(i)(b) of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear an application that is filed within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for management evaluation, which in the case at hand was 45 days. Having filed the application on the same day as the two requests for management evaluation, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear it...

Staff rule 4.7(a) and (b) has a limited and express area of application as established in staff rule 4.7(c) and that, per a contrario, a person who is the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member and who applied to a post, was considered and was selected through a competitive selection process as being the best candidate, can be assigned to any post, including in the same department/unit which is not superior or subordinate in the line of authority to the staff member to whom s/he is related. Staff rule 4.7(c), by establishing that the posts which are superior or...

Receivability: The part of the application regarding the decision identified under ¡°g) the possibility of providing a negative reference about [the Applicant] to OLA where [she has] been interviewed and considered for a shortterm position of six months¡± is to be rejected as not receivable since a request for management evaluation was not filed timely. Merits: The contested decision: The Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated following the abolishment of her post due to a lack of funds and therefore subject to availability of suitable posts, the Applicant had the right (¡°shall¡±) to be...

Following Order No. 250 (GVA/2017), the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP was rescinded and the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that this matter was moot.; The Tribunal found that since it cannot review the assessment and finding made by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Ethics Office with respect to the Applicant¡¯s request for protection from retaliation, it cannot, either, examine the delays, if any, that occurred in the framework of that assessment. For that reason alone, the application insofar as it was addressed against the delay, if any, by the Ethics Office to review the Applicant¡¯s request for...

The Dispute Tribunal found that the Applicant did not manage to lift her burden of proving that the non-renewal of her contract was not due to poor performance and found instead that the decision was lawful.

The Respondent submitted that the case was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not concern an appealable decision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim and found the case receiveable.

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant¡¯s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found not...

The Tribunal stressed that the Applicant, contrary to his assertion, was not awarded compensation for loss of earnings. He was awarded material damages for his loss of opportunity.; The Tribunal reviewed the paragraph sought to be interpreted and was of the view that the Judgment was comprehensible and clear. The expression ¡°net base salary¡± was found to be clear and unambiguous and to refer to gross salary minus staff assessment. It does; not include a post adjustment component. The Tribunal also clearly did not provide for the taking into consideration of a possible step increment in the...

The Tribunal noted that the provisions of both the former Staff Rules and the former mobility Administrative Instruction were very clear in that staff members holding temporary appointments are not eligible to receive mobility allowance.; The Tribunal found that the period when the Applicant held temporary appointments could not count towards the requirement of five years¡¯ prior consecutive service.; The Tribunal noted that the Applicant resigned in 2014 from his appointment in the General Service category, which he had held since 1993, and later received successive temporary appointments for...

Receivability; The Tribunal was satisfied that the object of the application was sufficiently clear and determined that it was two-folded finding that: a)On the one hand, the Applicant challenged the deduction of 25% of his salary implementing the alimony order of a Kazakh court; and; b)On the other hand, the Applicant contested the Administration¡¯s refusal to recognize his concerned daughter (El.) as his dependent for the purpose of the United Nations¡¯ child dependency benefits.; With respect to the refusal to recognize child El. as the Applicant¡¯s dependent for the purpose of the United...