Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

The Tribunal held that the Respondent had made more than a minimal showing that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of D-1, Chief of Service, Humanitarian Affairs, was not tainted by improper consideations. The Applicant failed to show that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

A matter cannot be before the MEU and the Dispute Tribunal simultaneously and allowing applicants to circumvent this process and file applications with the Tribunal before the deadline for a response to a request for management evaluation has passed would contravene the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure, undermine the time lines set out in the Staff Rules, and would be contrary to the intentions of the General Assembly.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...

1) With regard to Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The only decision under Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent¡¯s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant¡¯s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.

Under sec. 3.2 of ST/SB/2008/5 and as a matter of good faith and fair dealing, by failing/omitting to review and consider an Applicant¡¯s complaint and informing him of the result, the Administration rendered an appealable administrative decision in accordance with art. 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s consistent jurisprudence. The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA¡¯s decision of 17 April 2016 was of a general kind pursuant to the restructuring and was not a decision of individual application to the detriment of the Applicant. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s claim that the contested decision was motivated by abuse of power, ill will directed against his own interests or any other improper motive, the Tribunal held that the the Applicant had provided no arguable case to support his position.

The Tribunal held that the evidence before it showed that the Applicant had signed a contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS governed by the terms and conditions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Individual Contractor Agreement which, among others, provided that the Applicant had a status of an independent contractor, and was not to be regarded, for any purpose, as a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the United Nations. Therefore, the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the United Nations, had no locus standi before the Tribunal. As a result, the application was struck out as being not...